15/10/2012 Newsnight

Today, the 300-year union between England and Scotland was put on

notice. Alex Salmond has got his referendum.

And now the battle has commenced over everything from the economy to

killing off Trident. As Mr Cameron leaves Scotland, the

question is, is the union safer or more in jeopardy?

We will hear from Scotland's leading "yes" woman, and Alistair

Darling, the man who says "no". You are what you eat, but do you

know what you are eating and what it does to your body and your brain.

Shrimp scampi for you, smell that garlic. While scientists begin to

look at how addictive food is. The lawyers are chasing big food for

billions. These companies will be forced to obey the law and be

forced to pay a lot of money, and they have brought it on themselves.

Is it game over for men, a sensational new book claims the

global recession is ushering in a matriarchy, not so says Mary Beard,

as she takes on the author of The End of Men.

Good evening, signed, sealed and delivered. At least Alex Salmond

and David Cameron have agreed there will be a legally binding

referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, even if that's all they

agree on. Less than 20 years after the referendum, which established a

Scottish Parliament, voters in Scotland, including 16 and 17-year-

olds, are going to vote on going all the way. The serried ranks,

some would say the unholy alliance of Labour, Conservative and Liberal

Democrats, are going to battle for the union, that has been in place

since 1707. We witnessed the historic deal between the Prime

Minister and the First Minister in the Scottish capital, and joins us

there from now. Kirsty, it's not often that

politicians can legitimately claim that in the course of their day's

work they have done something that could echo down the centuries. But

here in Edinburgh today, two leaders have met, they have shaken

hands, and they have agreed to do something. They have agreed to take

a gamble, that they are right, and the other man is wrong. For Alex

Salmond, the gamble is simple, for the last decade or so, the

electoral success of the SNP, and it has been successful, they have a

majority in the Scottish Parliament, has been to say to the largely

independent, sceptical Scottish public, don't worry, if you don't

agree with us on this, we can park this issue and decide another day.

That day is coming, it will be in the autumn of 2014. He is about to

define himself, he is defining himself on the other side of public

opinion, from the vast, or at least the majority, of the Scottish

public. For David Cameron, it is a gamble as well. He's saying that,

although he cares passionately about the future of the union, it's

probably more dangerous for him, in the course of that union's future,

to stand against a referendum. He has done everything he can today,

even going along with, what he would probably regard, as some

grandise choreography, to prevent - - grandiose choreography, to

prevent the Scottish showing him as a great English story for the date

with destiny. Two men take a gamble, and we won't know who it is for two

years. For a potentially momentous day in

Scottish history, the First Minister, at least, it started on a

microscale, reading to little children. But the text was, well,

apt enough. For those not familiar with the excellent We're Going On A

Bear Hunt, it is a tale of perseverence, of overcoming

seemingly insurmountable obstacles, bay facing them head on. -- by

facing them head on. "mud, boozing mud, we can't go over it, we can't

go under it, no, we have to go through the mud". Through all sorts

of political mud, Alex Salmond has squelched his way through to a

referendum. Not everyone thought he had the legal right to call one.

But today came the might of the Government of David Cameron who

lend him that right to have one, in return for certain conditions. If

this reminds you of a state visit, you might think that is one of Alex

Salmond's objectives, to show, with the choreography of this event,

that the Prime Minister visiting parts of the UK, is actually coming

to an already independent-minded country. Are you ready. OK.

signing had the appearance of an international treaty, which David

Cameron clearly won hands down. If If the objective was, who could

sign fastest. In terms of the agreement itself, a winner is

harder to call. Alex Salmond certainly got what he wanted in

terms of timing, the autumn of 2014, not only the anniversary of

Bannockburn, but also, it gives him more time to try to turn around

public opinion. He also got 16 and 17-year-olds eligible to vote. More

likely, some say, to vote for independence. And what did David

Cameron get? His big prize was, limiting the referendum to a single

question, independence, yes or not. No third option that the SNP wanted,

no option for Devo Max. We got what I have always wanted, not two

single questions, not Devo Max, a very simple single question that

has to be put before the end of 2014, so we end the uncertainty, we

put beyond doubt Scotland's position, either within the United

Kingdom, as I hope, or separating theself from the United Kingdom.

One, single, simple question, that, for me, was always the key. Don't

expect David Cameron to be making too many visits to Scotland to make

the case for the union. Before fearless Felix stepped out

of his balloon capsule, the previous free fall record was held

by the Scottish Conservative Party. They haven't fully emerged from the

sizeable impact crater they have made. Don't expect them to be

leading the way for the union in Scottened la, instead, expect

Labour to do much of the -- Scotland, instead, expect Labour to

do much of the heavy lifting. To have people like David Cameron,

very ideaable with England, talking about the advantages of being in

the union, is that actually damaging to your cause? No, I don't

think so. I think he's quite comfortable in St Andrew's House,

because the affectionate name for the SNP is, "the tartan Tories", he

will find fellow travellers there. The question of whether we remain

in the union, transcends political parties. It is about what's good

for the people of the country. You will find people come together,

from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, those in a party, those not even

aligned at all, because they care about the future of Scotland.

If you are Alex Salmond, how do you claim to have won the negotiations

game, set and match, without appearing smug? Well, off the cuff,

entirely unscripted, you could say, something like this. I used to have

in my notes, which no doubt came from the special advisers, it says,

"do not look triumphalists", so in this press conference, I'm doing my

absolute best not to look triumphalist! At his press

conference, the First Minister tried to he can sued the air of a

man who had -- he can sued the air of a man who dexude the air of a

man who had everything he wanted. In Edinburgh they will everything

they wanted, that will be built on behalf of the Scottish people. That

is the substantial and important step forward, do I believe that

independence will win this campaign? Yes, I do. We will win it

by setting out a positive vision for a better future for our country,

economically, and crucially, socially. It is that vision of That

is a vision of a compassionate and confident society moving forward in

Scotland that will carry away. What he hasn't won -- Carry the day.

What he hasn't won yet is the referendum itself. And the polls

suggest now he won't. The majority in Scotland are opposed, only 28%

are in favour. But with two years left to go, perhaps he still has

time to squelch through that obstacle as well.

In a moment we will hear from a leading figure of the "no" campaign,

Alistair Darling. Before coming on air, I spoke to the Deputy First

Minister of Scotland, the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon.

Nicola Sturgeon, consistently polling shows 2-1 against

independence, isn't this going to be like pushing a boulder up a

giant mountain? It is a challenge, I readily accept that. But it is a

challenge we relish. You will remember, Kirsty, back in January

of 2011, the SNP was ten fifteen points back in the opinion polls,

people wrote us off and we won a majority in the election. If we put

the argument for independence as effectively and compellingly as we

know it can be put, I'm confident we can turn the polls around and

win the referendum. Let as talk about the economy, that is

obviously uppermost in people's minds, you want to stick to

sterling, what control will you have over the sterling, except to

leave it? We will have fiscal independence, we don't that have

that now. You will be like Greece and Slovenia, and what have you?

The comparisons with Greece and Slovenia are not particularly

credible comparisons. Scotland and the rest of the UK have similar

levels of productivity, it is described as an optimal currency

area, it makes sense for Scotland and the rest of the UK to retain

that currency union. We would have fiscal independence to take

decisions about tax and spending, that best reflect our needs in

Scotland. Who will set the interest rates in Scotland? As is case at

the moment, that would be done through the Bank of England.

the benefit of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, primarily? That

would be done for the benefit of the constituent parts of the stairl

sterling parts owing. What we would have that we don't have now, is

fiscal independence, it would allow us to ensure we have tax and

spending controls for our needs, and control over the welfare system.

Right now we see a Conservative Government dismantling the welfare

state, independence would allow a welfare system that suits our needs.

You are heavily dependant on oil revenues, in our new system, you

don't know what percentage of revenues you are going to get. You

don't know what the price will be, you haven't even done that

negotiation, how can you promise Scottish people more? But you look

at the Government extendure and -- expenditure and revenue account,

published independently by Government economist, the most

recent version of that, the 2010 will be 11 figures, shows Scotland

was better off d2010/1 figures, shows Scotland better off to the

rest of England. If we were independent then, we could have

choices we could have made. We could have spent more and reduced

borrowing more, and cut taxes or a bomb nation of all of these things.

Scotland more than pays her way. The question is, do we want to have

the economic and political powers that allow us to take the decisions

about how those resources are spent. Both you and Alex Salmond are very

keen to say that you admire the cultural ties you have with England

and so forth. How much do you think has Scotland

gained from the union? I think Scotland has gained in some ways

from the union, but I do think the lack of political and economic

powers outweighs. That I want Scotland to have a close and

constructive and friendly relationship with people right

across these islands. I'm the granddaughter of an English woman,

I cheered Mo Farah in the Olympics, as loudly as Andy Murray. We're not

asking people to choose a flag or a national identity, we are asking

people to consider where political and economic power best lies.

Surely the people that are best placed to take these big decisions

of Scotland, are the people who have the biggest stake in the

future of our country. The people who live and work here. That is the

essence for the case for independence. When we put it like

that, and when people realising those arguing for the "no" vote are

offering no guaranteed change. You will then see the opinion polls

change. Alistair Darling is, of course, the

former Chancellor, he's acting as the chair of the Berry -- Better

Together Campaign. Does it feel right to be in cahoots with a party

that has one MP out of 129? disagree with David Cameron and

George Osborne and Nick Clegg on many issues, that doesn't stop me

from choose to go share a platform with other people who believe we

are better off together within the United Kingdom. It doesn't mean you

agree with all their policies. We are not talking here about electing

a parliament for five years, or whatever. You are talking about

something that could last another 300 years. I think most people, the

majority of people in Scotland believe that we are better together

as part of the UK. This is all a bit rich, for people like you and

Gordon Brown, and Charlie Kennedy, had decided to eschew Westminster

and gone to parliament in Edinburgh, the idea is we wouldn't have been

in this position, because you would have lent your weight to

devolution? The fact is the Scottish Parliament wasn't there

when we stood for election. It wasn't until 1997 when it was set

up. You could have absented yourself? It could have done,

except I chose to remain in Westminster. Because it was better?

No, because if you take the economy, I was responsible for many things

that affect Scotland. That doesn't get away from the fact that the

nationalists, who won the Scottish election last year, are entitled,

because this is what they believe in, to put before people, the

option of leaving the United Kingdom. I think that is profoundly

wrong. Which is why I'm leading thism ka pain. Its not about me or

-- this campaign, it is not about me or Gordon or Charlie, this will

be something that will be there long after we are going down.

are leading a negative "no" campaign? It is called Better

Together. It is the "no" campaign. You want to characterise it like

that. No to independence? We are better together as the United

Kingdom, because we have a single economic market, most of what we

sell goes to England. It also, because it builds on the strong

cultural ties we have. And a third part, it gives us more influence,

not just in Europe, but the wider world. Just as Andrew Mitchell

finds it hard to say the word "pleb" you find it hard to say "no",

you are leading the "no" to independence campaign?

emphatically against independence, I'm very much in favour of staying

in the United Kingdom, because I believe as a country, as Scotland,

we don't have to choose between being Scottish and British, we can

be proud to be both, it is in the best interests of Scotland in terms

of jobs and security, as well as recognising that the United Kingdom

is more than the sum of the parts. We can be ambitious about our

prospects for the future, as part of the United Kingdom. You have put

out as the leading face for the "no" campaign against Alex Salmond,

are you a better politician or he better as a politician than you?

is not that question. He believes in taking Scotland out of the

United Kingdom. I believe Scotland is better together as part of the

United Kingdom, and that is the basis of a campaign. He has won an

election, straight in Scotland? is interesting, a lot of the polls

that have been carried out, people say, yes, for the Government of

Scotland, they voted for him, but nearly a third of SNP voters, last

time round, said they are not going to vote for independence. People

vote given ways at different times. This isn't an argument about which

politician is better than another. It might come down to that? No, it

doesn't. People in Scotland will have to decide whether or not they

and their country are better together as part of the UK, with

all the strengths, all the traditions that builds on, or

whether we take what is in effect a one-way ticket into a deeply

uncertain future. Would you live in an independent Scotland? Of course

I will carry on living in Scotland. My argument isn't that Scotland

couldn't go it alone. And indeed, Nicola Sturgeon was quoting figures

there, plucking one set of figuring out of a series of 20, many of

which show the complete oppositement when you look at the

problems you are going to have in entering into a eurozone-style

single currency, you have to enter into a fiscal pact that doesn't

allow different countries to go their own way. It rather binds them

together. And ultimately it ends up in political union. When you look

at the arguments the nationalists are putting forward, it makes no

sense at all. They are trying to argue that everything will change,

but nothing will change. The next time you buy packaged food,

peer at the ingredient, all of them, and try to work out what they all

are. Chances are if it is processed you won't be able to figure out

exactly what you are eating, and so concerned are health specialists

and campaigners about the sometimes horrible stuff you unknowingly put

in your mouth, and the health implications, diep II diabetes,

that American lawyers are prepared to go after billions of dollars.

They have had a huge victory before. In the first of a series of films

this week about what we eat, here is our science editor.

# It's just a cigarette # It will soon be only ten

# Honey can you trust me # When I want to stop I can

Cutting smoking was one of the great public health battles of the

last century. At first, the idea that cigarettes

were bad for you, was dismissed, out of hand.

By the end, the toe bab co- companies admitted, in court, that

smoking was -- to be back co- companies admitted, in court, that

smoking was harmful, and they agreed to pay substantial damages.

The to be back co-lawsuits hit those companies -- tobacco lawsuits

hit those companies hard, over �$2 billion. Now the food industry is

facing the same argument. Some food producers survive on a business

model that means exploiting children from a young age, and

having foods high in sugar, fat and salt, because people consume those

things, it is labelling things in questionable questions. The food

companies have mis-branded many, many of the packaged foods that

they sell as healthy, and natural. Also as sugar-free. You can't say

it is all natural when it is choc full of preservatives. They are

lying about it, and they have to stop. Don Barrett led the fight

against big tobacco, he worked on the Jeffrey Wigand case, the

whistleblower who told all. movie was spot on with what

happened. I have this vivid rex collections that The Insider we

flipped in parliament who testified for us at great personal risk.

Jail? Possible, yes, that is one of the possible consequences of your

testifying today. I remember him, as he made his decision, and it was

fascinating to watch Russell Crowe do the same thing. Let's go to

court. Now Barrett and many of those lawyers are turning their

guns on big food. The case against the food companies is simple, that

they are not being honest about what's in their product. They have

a right to know, and that's what our litigation is about. It's about

freedom of choice, and to have free choice, you have to have accurate

information, what that means is, that the big food, the food

companies have to start telling the truth about what is in their

products. The law requires it. years ago, Mr Barrett began his

campaign against big tobacco here in Lexington Mississippi. Since

then the number of obese Americans have doubled, the ballooning

medical costs already rival those of smoking. What is in our food is

becoming the public health battle of this century. And labelling is

the first battleground. One lawsuit concerns a yoghurt maker, Chobani.

You look for sugar, because you don't want any, there is none there.

They do have evaporated cane juice, that sounds, sort of vague, and

some how healthy, and natural. Evaporated cane juice, if you live

in southern Louisiana, in Cuba, you understand what that is, that is

sugar. The law says, you have to call ingredients by their common,

ordinary name, calling sugar evaporated cane juice is deceptive,

it is a lie, it is illegal. Chobani told us they have built

their business on being authentic and transparent, and they fully

stand behind their products. Don Barrett is suing the makers of over

20 item, including fruit juices, crisps, soft drinks, chocolate,

tinned tomatos, canned fruits, baby milk and tea. Under federal law, if

a product is mis-branded, it cannot be sold. There is a four-year

statute of limitations, the damage in these cases, is how much have

they sold of this mis-branded junk in the last four years. One of the

potato chip companies we are suing, you know, sells $13 billion worth

of product a year. My goodness. are seeing the beginning of what

could be a much larger set of legal actions taken against the food

industry. This is one of the world's leading experts on obesity

and public health. He thinks the industry will fight as hard as

tobacco did, to keep its business model intact. The industry in the

United States and elsewhere in the world has been happy to make some

small changes, but when it comes to taxing their products, they have

gone completely ballistic. When it comes to restricting portion sizes,

they have done the same thing. They are doing lots of the things the

tobacco industry did to fight these massive lobbying. Resources put

into political campaigns, heavy public relations and advertising

campaigns they are running. Creating fun groups with community,

wholesome-sounding names. Researchers here at Yale are

looking much more closely at the links between processed food and

diet-related illness. They are increasingly convinced

that it is the particular combination of sugar, fat and salt,

and its concentration in refined form, that leads us to want to eat

more. Lawyers talk about informed choice. But scientists are asking

whether some have the ability to choose at all.

It is pretty year that some foods, sugar in particular, activate the

same reward pathways in the brain, the classic substances of abuse,

still, heroin, cocaine, nicotine, alcohol, et cetera. Nobody claims

that food has that strong of an effect, as those classic substances,

but in effect, nonetheless, -- an effect, nonetheless. There are

signs from animal and human studies that you get cravings from these

foods, you get withdrawal when people stop consuming them. There

might even been be something called toll reign, that you need more of

the same substance over time -- tolerance, that you need more of

the same substance over time to get the same effect. Why does

scientific research tell us about how what we eat is affecting our

bodies. Here at the National laboratory in Long Island, they are

looking at the effect of diet on our brains. It is an early area of

research, but it could push the whole debate in another direction.

This is one of the US Government's leading addiction labs. I have

shrimp, scampi for you, smell that garlic and the shrimp. Researchers

allow subjects to see, smell and taste foods they like, and monitor

how vigorously their brain responds. By measuring how much dop dopamine

is released. Dopamine is one of the brain's messenger, it helps us

engage in rewarding exercises. Addicts are addicted to the

dopamine, rather than the drug. you feel hungry now, give me a

number, one to ten? Nine. They say people who are very obese, are less

able to pick up their own dopamine signal, so need more of what makes

them feel good. I'm starving. me a number, one to 10. I'm passed

the ten, 14. Some people who crave food or drugs, want more and more,

because they are never satisfied. Taste that banana cream pie, isn't

that good, OK that's it. We found that the obese person, their brain

dopamine receptor imaging, very similar to drug abuser, such as

cocaine abuser. The higher rate means the higher activity, the one

in the blue means a low activity. Dr Wang's scans shows the brain's

dopamine response to food in obese people and cocaine in drug users,

the parallels are striking. So that means also they have roughly around

15-20% of the less dopamine receptor, we can see these are very

similar between the obese person and the drug abuser. And though it

is early days, there is evidence that the brains of some people

might be changed over time, if they eat calorie-dense food. The more

you need processed food, the brain gradually is less sense yif to each

mouthful and you have to -- sensitive to each mouthful and you

have to eat more and more. I would be surprised if this doesn't enter

the legal picture. Whether that is premature or not, those will be

decisions a court will have to make. Is the science strong enough, have

we really proven these are addictive. But the science is

building and building. So far the food debate has centered

on content and labelling. The food industry argues such things are

best left to theself. But many believe that self-regulation can't

work. They, like any industry, want to maximise consumption and

purchase of their products. Hard to blame them for that, that is what

they are in business to do, so expecting and hoping industry will

effectively regulate theself, is just wishful thinking, I believe. -

- themselves, is just wishful thinking, I believe. That is why I

believe you have to have Government or the courts involved. There is

one thing that corporate America pays attention to. And that's

getting hit in the pocket book, it is all about profit. And if only

when you affect their -- effect their profit will you affect their

behaviour. We intend to do that. # It is just a cigarette

# Like you always used to do # I was different then

# I don't need them to be cool Big food knows what happens in

individual lawsuits can radically affect all of their brands.

The tobacco lawsuits led to rapid and lasting change in attitudes to

cigarettes, how they were marketed, labelled and regulated. The food

companies will be watching Don Barrett's cases closely.

Joining me now from Washington is Justin Wilson of the Center for

Consumer Freedom, and here in the studio is a cardiologist, who has

been outspoken on obesity. Do you agree with the thesis that

essentially unhealthy junk food is addictive? As your report has shown,

I think that there is definitely a science that suggests sugar in

particular, is not only toxic, but acts on a brain that drives

appetite, and stops us from feeling full. Whether that's objective, we

need more data on that, certainly there is a theory this could be

true. And when you look at some of the patients that you see, and you

obviously see clinically obese people, but you see people with

heart problems, who are not obese, is there a co-relation between

their lifestyle, in terms of the food they eat, and how they are

presenting to you? Absolutely. Let's look at the statistics at the

moment, even for children, in this country one in three children in

this country are overweight or he obese. More recently, we also

discovered that there are markers of cardiac disease in country,

there was a study showing children with markers of high cholesterol

and issues with the heart, that is related to diet. If the food

companies won't regulate themselves, is there a need for some form of

regulation about the content of food? Let's be clear the debate

about food addiction is ridiculous. We are addicted to food, it is

clear, it is called hunger, if you try to go cold turkey, good luck,

you won't survive it. If salt and sugar were addictive substances,

that would make my grandmother a big drug dealer with the cookies

she used to make. I reject this notion fully, that Americans cannot

tell the difference between a banana and a banana split. If

someone is saying we need to sue a crisp manufacturer for making

something that people thought was healthy, come on, people know

potato chips shouldn't be enjoyed in large quantities. We are missing

the point. I'm not at all. What people choose to eat is determined

more by the promotional information put on the products, not objective

information about the nutritional content. We know there are cereals

out there, marketed as being full of vitamin, they are loaded with

sugar and salt. This is not allowing people to make informed

decision. These words, "evaporated cane juice", why not call it sugar,

"evaporated cane juice" sounds like something special. That argument,

one I have been following closely I think it represents 1%, and it is a

problem. Do you know who doesn't make a claim about their food, ice-

cream manufacturers, there is not a label on the front of ice-cream

that says the calcium in this milk makes your bones strong. Nobody

makes those claims about the vast majority of foods being claimed

unhealthy. That is not the problem here. Fundamentally, I don't

understand at what point we decided it was OK for the Government to

decide how much we are allowed to weigh. That is not a point, I don't

think, that the Government should have to make. Even though it has an

impact on the healthcare system? have two different healthcare

system,ly speak to everyone. In the UK everyone pays for each other's

bad behaviour, but obesity is only one of many bad behaviours that

contribute to rising healthcare costs. Why is it the one that we

seem to be allowing to regulate it. I have talked to a lot of people,

you have a lot of people looking down their nose at people who are

overweight, saying they know what is best for you, and protect you

from yourself, it is paternalistic. You were behind one of the moves

against the supermarkets that didn't go on, would that have

helped? There is strong evidence that suggest traffic light systems

makes it easier for people to know what they are eating and

encouraging healthy choice. If we have a traffic light system that

displays the levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat in foods, it will

encourage the food companies to reformulate their products and make

them healthy. Wouldn't that be a positive way forward? The traffic

light system, to a certain extent we already have it. It seems we are

trying to force more and more manufacturing, we have a good

balance. If you want to know what is in your food, it is on the back.

Its clear, whether in the United States or Europe or anywhere else.

At the same time, we live in culture of warning labels and

lawsuits, we are going to get to a point where we have to put a little

bit of responsibility on the consumer. Like I said before, it

doesn't like a PhD in nutrition to tell the difference between a

banana and a banana split F someone is trying to eek out a calorie or

two savings, they are not trying to lose weight. What we are losing

track of, we are not trying to encourage people to lose weight

with the policies. The stream of allegations of child

sex abuse by Jimmy Savile continues on an almost daily basis. The BBC

has ordered three separate independent investigations into

claims thatm so of the assaults took place on its premises. Tonight

the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said there should be a public

inquiry carried out by an outside body. I think we need a broader

look at the public institutions, the BBC, some parts of the NHS,

potentially. Broadmoor. A judicial inquiry? I'm still open-minded

about how it is done, it has to be independent. I don't think you can

have the BBC board, I'm great supporter of the BBc but I don't

think you can have the BBC board leading its own inquiry. Do you

this this is a surprising intervention by Ed Miliband,

everyone else has piled in? There are many reasons, and I will go

through them. He interferes in those situations, after the Milly

Dowler inquiry he piled in. It is because he has a theory about

British society right now, which is establishments are crumbling,

exactly the thing in the spotlight with the BBC investigation, the

1970s, that period where you had an establishment and people wouldn't

say boo to a goose, and people are coming out and doing. That he wants

to support that. The other problem for that is the BBC, it relies on

trust, the number of inquiries, the one inquiry on the Thursday, two

inquiries being announced on the Friday. It didn't inspire much

confidence in many people in parliament. Does the pressure on

the BBC continue? It does, today George Entwistle, the director-

general, has said he will bring forward his appearance in front of

an MPs' committee to October 23rd, he will have to have more rigorous

answers than he had when he appeared on Friday. Many people

weren't impressed with that appearance.

Imagine the scene, the recession hits, and suddenly it's the rise of

the valkaries, scattering all the hunter gatherers in their wake. The

women have been able to take the circumstances in their stride, they

thrive while men shrivel and quake, unable to adapt. That is the thesis,

in a nutshell, of Hanna Rosin's new book, The End of Men. In a molt I

will be talking to the author, and the historian, Mary Beard, who

disagrees we are becoming a matriarchal society. First a man

comfortable in his skin. Stephen Smith. Our island story was once

about the great man theory of history, Cromwell, Nelson,

Churchill Thatch...you get the idea. In the work place, the man was top

dog, earning big wages in traditional metal-bashing

industries. It was tough to get a look in as a

woman. An ordinary dinner party. I wonder

if the Government should return to the gold standard? I think it

should. I think the Government should stay off the gold standard,

so that the pound can reach a level that will keep our exports

competitive. The lady has foolishly attempted to join the conversation,

with a wild and dangerous opinion of her own, what half baked drivel.

Women, know your limits. But now look, men are in turn

around, the Hary Bikers are on a diet. What about Aussie sports

legend, Shane Warne, whisper it, he uses product.

Never mind the great man of history, men are history, period, or so says

a new book. In China women own more than 40% of businesses. By 2008,

working-class women in America had a higher median income than the men.

And the number of women with six- figure incomes is rising at a much

faster rate than it is for men. In the shadow of West Ham United's

ground in East London, we called in at a Working Men's Club to discuss

Hanna Rosin's book. These fans of the Irons, turned out to be dab

hands at pressing their shirts. Are you pretty tastey with an iron?

pretty good. Did you do that? Nice piece of work, if I may say so.

You can say it. All the industry around here is finished, the docks

all closed down. Do you think, that look like the book for me? No. It

just doesn't seem my type of book. A bit heavy? Probably very heavy, I

should think. To go through this, I would probably get a little bit,

you know, here we go! Journalist, Nicholas Lezzard, has written about

the trials of modern manhood, are we washed up? I like to think I'm

still good for getting a spider out of the bath, changing a lightbulb

or blown fuse. That is where you come into your own? Absolutely,

yeah. Real crises like that! Never mind being sacked and not having

any money, this is where the real stuff is. I still class myself as

the master of my house. I don't class myself as demeaning myself by

doing tasks. I'm helping my wife out, because my wife is going to

work and being the bread winner, basically. What will your missus

say when she watches this tonight, if she does, what will she say?

Superstar! No, she'll just probably have a chuckle to herself, I should

think. I'm joined by the author of The End

of Men, Hanna Rosin, and the Cambridge professor, Mary Beard.

You are suggesting there is no way back from this, Industrial Society

has changed, and men as hunter gatherers is doomed? It is about

women adapting to the new economy and men having a harder time doing

that. It is getting the degrees and credentials they need, and men are

stuck. Men are rabbits in the headlights and women are already

there, because they have had so many jobs in the house? It is also

because they have been marginalised, they are like immigrants, they

hustle and feel like they get paid less than men, they are working

twice as hard, and afraid to fall through the cracks. I think Hanna,

in a funny way, are on the same side. We both think things are

changing. If things weren't changing for women, the feminist

movement would have done a really bad over the last 50 years. Things

are getting better, that is absolutely true. Look at women on

the boardrooms and executive positions, they are in a vast

minority? I think it is great book, which proves the opposite case for

what it has claimed. The The type says that the age of testosterone

is decisively over. Well, maybe I just mixed in the wrong circle, but

it is not decisively over in my university, it is not decisively

over in most work places. We see horrible examples every day, in

fact, in the way the day of testosterone is still alive and

well. Hanna's point is women necessarily doing things in a

different way are picking up the testosterone themselves? You can

have a huge amount of social upheaval and things look the same

at the top. People say look at the corporate boards. I travel my

country and it is a world turned upside down. In very conservative

places where people are not feminist, you have a large number

of women supporting their families, not because they are feminists,

because they have to. I think what you are suggesting in the book, far

from being an asset is the man who irons their shirts, men are just a

burden in the house? That is what I think, rather brilliantly proven

time and again in the book. You get these awful slobs who are

exploiting, yet again, the female of the species. I think it is easy

enough to cite statistics, and say, look, men's unemployment has risen

faster than women'sen employment in the recession. In some ways that's

true, but it always negligents the way that -- neglects wait that

women are always in the disadvantaged careers. Would you

say that through history? They are working part-time, women have

always been in those professions that are undervalued, easy to

ignore, easy to cut. We can say, these poor old working-class.

about the real matriarchyy? It is patriarchy's myth. Every patriarchy

has always said, do you know what men, the one thing to fear is

matriarchy, most of all, they say once spon a time women ruled the

world and made a fright -- once upon a time women ruled the world

and made a frightful mess of it. Now they pick up on Hanna and say,

women are about to rule the world. That is an eccentric definition of

matriarchy, you have large swathes of society where where the women

are raising the children and earning the money. I don't think it

is a good thing, it is not that pleasant, it means that the women

are doing everything and the men are dropping out and not being

fathers. There is a chapter in the book with the see-saw partnership,

and the see-saw marriage, a 20th century thing, at different times

the men are the bread winners and then the women. The Obamas have had

that marriage, she was a healthcare executive when she was at law

school and then they switched place. Is that a professional thing?

is a professional thing. I divide the book between elite college-

educated marriages and everyone else's marriages. It is not a

triumphalist feminist book, most of it is not good. The poor old woman

who falls asleep between floor one and floor four in the book because

she was so knackered. Likewise the 40% of the women working in this

country are working in low-paid, part-time jobs, they are supporting

their families. 20% of families are, and it is thankless. And you know,

there might be a certain definition on, which we might call that

matriarchy, it is not the definition that makes any sense to

me. Who said it was a utopian dream, it just means a sense of control

and lack of dependance, that is the big historical shift, women were

once dependant on men, now if the men drop out, the women by

necessity are independent. What should happen, then, in the rust

belt where women are picking up and taking menial jobs, the husbands,

having been these big welders, won't do, there will have to be an

evolution of these men? Yes, I don't think they are genetically

incapable of evolving, there have been many periods in history, after

World War II, when the Americans men came back, they went to school,

there was the GI belt, it wasn't like they were incapable, they are,

it just isn't now. Women are going into things like nursing, in ever-

larger numbers, the only trouble is, they are squeezing the women out.

Thank you very much. I'm sure we will talk about this long after we

come off air. That is it from us in our new home in Broadcasting House.

From all of us, a very good night. From all of us, a very good night.

I will be back tomorrow night. On the anniversary of a great storm

of 1987, I'm not expecting a repeat performance. It will stay pretty

damp across parts of zone Scotland on the far north of England

throughout much of the way. Elsewhere sunshine, it will be very

windy for a time across parts of the Midlands and central England.

Lots of sunshine across the south, temperatures not doing too badly,

14-15 grease, the odd rogue shower, dry nearly everywhere, it would

have been a very windy start to the day across a good part of Wales.

The strongest of the wind will tend to subside later on. It will keep a

lot of sunshine going, the odd dot of blue, a few isolated showers.

Northern Ireland, after a damp start, things should dry out to

some extent, keeping cloud here. Disappointing low cool. It will be

a chilly day across Scotland, despite a frosty start.

Temperatures not getting high, bleak and damp across Scotland.

Further ahead into Wednesday, the weather will not be settling down.

More wind and rain spreading across many parts of the UK, from south to

north, following in southern areas by something brighter, even then