22/07/2014 Newsnight

Many of the bodies from the Malaysian airline plane crash

are on their way home, the recovered black boxes are heading to the UK

for analysis but are investigators any nearer to knowing what exactly

Was the Kremlin behind the death of Alexander Litvinenko?

Seven years after his murder, the Government has finally agreed to

This is a very grave allegation that has to be examined. We have to get

to the bottom of it. If the price of it is some of the material being

examine bed hind closed doorsI for one would accept that. We speak to

Marina Litvinenko. Obscuring the faces of the dead. Is this an act of

respect by broadcasters or has television no right to censor what

we see of war? And, after a disastrous England

World Cup performance, does football's governing body need to

take some of the blame? I'll ask Greg Dyke, the chair of the FA.

The bodies of many of the passengers on flight MH 17 are

finally on their way home, six days after their plane was attacked.

There are reported to be the remains of 282 people on the train now in

There is to be a service of farewell in the Ukranian town at

9am tomorrow before the first flight takes off for Eindhoven airport.

Tomorrow is a day of national mourning in the Netherlands.

Gabriel Gatehouse was at the crash site todayIt's taken seven years of

We hear there's been a statement from the US State Department. What

does its contain? Officials briefing journalists anonymously in

Washington said they could find no evidence of direct Russian

involvement in the downing of MH 16 17. They said they still thought it

was likely to have been brought down by a surface-to-air missile in

rebel-controlled territory inside Ukraine. They said they thought that

Russia had created the conditions for the downing of the plane by

arming the separatists, but they stopped short of saying that Russia

armed them with this book surface-to-air missile system. No

direct evidence of direct involvement. Those that believe

Russia was involved, and there are many, will say that absence of

evidence, the rebels themselves maintain they had nothing to do with

it and further more didn't have the capability to bring down a plane at

this height. We know Malaysian officials joined other

investigators, there was tooing and froing with the rebels. What was

happening? There were three Malaysian aviation

experts on the site for the first time today, as opposed to forensic

experts who'd been examining the bodies. They didn't say anything,

but the OSCE, the European security organisation that's been here from

the start accused people of tampering with the evidence, of

taking a saw to some parts of the wreckage and started sawing it up. I

didn't see that, but we saw what seemed to be a crucial bit of

evidence, part of the fuse Raj - we can see some of the pictures we

filmed today - it's the left hand part of the cockpit, what appears to

be extensive shrapnel marks -- fuselage. Experts on these matters,

military aviation experts say these marks are consistent with the kind

of supersonic surface-to-air missile that they believe brought down this

plane. We saw this bit of fuselage propped up by the side of a village

lane that had been put there by a ten-year-old boy all these days

after the crash left totally unattended what appears to be a

crucial piece of evidence. There's dividing opinion about the bodies

being put on the train and taken to Eindhoven. What do you know about

that? It's said that they collected 282 out of the bodies. Dutch

officials said today they thought the number was closer to 200. They

are going to have to two back, and, as they put it, negotiate with the

rebels. We have seen on Sunday, Monday and indeed today, that they

are still pulling bodies from the wreckage. This leaves so much more

uncertainty for the families back home, many of them, of course, in

Holland, as you said, the first 50 of those will be flying from Ukraine

back to Holland, but many of the relatives still no clearer as to

whether their loved ones are on that flight or not.

Thank you very much. Michael Bociurkiw, you have spent

the last few days at the crash site. Can you tell us what you know of the

tampering of some parts of the fuselage by rebels and where they

actually -- and were they actually confronted when they began to do

that? Good evening. Well, first of all, we

have spent the past five days at the crash sites. We were the first

International Organisation there on the scene. Of course. And secondly,

if I may, I would like to correct the correspondent's tape in saying

that we did not accuse anyone of tampering with the evidence from the

crash site. We have said from day one to especially today when we were

with the Malaysian experts is that we have noticed quite marked changes

to some of the crash impact areas of which there are about eight. For

example, Gabriel referred to that big piece of fuselage. Really the

most burnt area of the crash site. That has been moved. Also, the

really, really tough area to locate is where the cockpit came down and

pancaked basically. We observed two days ago, uniformed men, emergency

services uniformed men hacking away with the powered saw into the

fuselage. We can't draw any conclusions from that, but whether

they were looking for more human remains or not, we are not quite

sure. How tough is this site in the sense

that if anything's moved, does it make your job much more difficult to

ascertain what actually happened? It does. I mean, we are there to

establish the facts and to report on them and to facilitate dialogue

also. What we have been doing all along is photographing the site

day-by-day by day. So by now, we probably have about 1,000 images,

and we'll be providing that to the authorities and to the Malaysians,

so they'll be able to tell how much this site has changed. If I could

add, I mean today there was almost an eerie quietness in the whole

crash area. All the emergency rescue effort had disappeared, tents that

were used to process the site have all gone, so it was basically us,

our small security detail and about 17 journalists. The word

extraordinary comes to mind really. But it's also a site, I understand,

where there will still be remains. What do you know of that?

Yes. In fact, today, we shared with our 57 states that we Didak chillily

spot human remains and in some very obvious areas at the side of the

roadway. I can also said that when we went again to the site where the

cockpit came down, the Malaysian experts noted that although they

couldn't see human remains, the own characteristics were there. We

believe the amount of human remains left, it's quite substantial and it

requires a massive search effort, it seems, to detect and collect all of

them. Do you think that for the people that have been there - there

are two different things there - there is an insecurity at the site,

physically. What impact has it had? A number of rescue workers, local

miners who helped, people like yourselves, what impact has it had

on you all in being there? Well, thank you for asking that. I

mean, we are Monitoring Mission of 275 monitors now from 40 different

countries and many from very hardened missions from the past,

many of us have worked emergencies, but I think most of us agree this is

like nothing else we have seen in terms of the extraordinary nature of

not having an act of rescue and recovery effort. Most importantly,

from the moment we arrived there, not detecting any security

perimeter. Also, just quickly, it is an act of conflict area. In fact,

just behind me, I can hear heavy weaponry explosions going off here

in Donetsk, it's a very insecure fluid area.

Michael Bociurkiw, thank you so much for joining us.

I will be speaking to a Dutch MEP later in the programme about how

their nation prepares for the victims of flight MH17 to return

home. It's taken seven years of pressure

by Alexander Litvinenko's widow Marina and her supporters, but

finally, there is to be a public inquiry into her husband's death.

She believes he was working for MI6 and was murdered in London on orders

from the Kremlin, something Russia denies. The decision is a complete

volte fast by the Government now acting with certain knowledge that

Vladimir Putin will be angered by the inquiry. Before the Home

Secretary Theresa May dragged her heels refusing to grant the inquiry

partly she admitted because of the impact on international relations.

Today, that doesn't seem to be an issue any more.

I do this, not against, not Russia, not England. I do this for justice.

I do this for truth. Today, nearly eight years after her husband,

Alexander Litvinenko east death, Marina, won a victory in the battle

to discover how he died in circumstances that he explained on

his death bed like this. The former KGB agent who turned into

a fierce critic of the Kremlin said the Russian state organised the

slipping of polonium into his tea at London's Mill enyum Hotel. That's

never been proved. The Government's now announced a public inquiry which

may do so. The key issue that will be examined

by this public inquiry is the culpability of the Russian state.

Apart from the suspects that remain named who were responsible for the

murder of Alexander Litvinenko, it is important to find out what state

agents acted in perpetrating the crime. How best to investigate crime

has been the subject of a long legal wrangle. In June last year, the

coroner in the Litvinenko inquest said a public inquiry would be the

best way to look at all the evidence, including sensitive

material relating to national security.

In July, the Government said no. It insisted an inquest excluding such

material would be adequate. In February, the High Court backed

Marina Litvinenko's challenge to that decision. Today, on the last

day of Parliament before the recess, the Government gave way for reasons

that appear political, though that's officially denied.

The Government said last year that fear of affecting Russian relations

was one factor in its refusal to hold a public inquiry into

Litvinenko's death. Now it seems that's no longer such a

consideration. Today's decision may have nothing to do with the downing

of the Malaysian airliner but it reflects a hardening in Britain's

attitude towards Russia since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis.

Those who're already seen the evidence in the Litvinenko case have

no doubt what will be revealed. We obviously - considered all of the

evidence very carefully indeed and, as far as I was considered, having

done that, this case bore all the hallmarks of a state execution on

the streets of our capital City and all the indications were, from the

evidence I saw, that Russian state actors were involved in this murder.

Russia's very unlikely to cooperate with the inquiry. It's refused to

extradite Andrei Lugovoi, now a Russian politician, whom Britain

wants to try for Alexander Litvinenko's murder. So the inquiry

will rely principally on British information, including about the

source of the radioactive polonium that killed him.

Whatever evidence links the suspects who met Alexander Litvinenko in this

hotel, with the Kremlin, will be provided by British intelligence and

will be heard in closed session. If it convinces the judge, he may end

up in effect branding Russia as a state sponsor of nuclear terrorism.

That would bring Mr Putin's standing in the world to a new low. If the

inquiry accepts the evidence and declares that to be the case, this

is going to be very significant. It's going to obviously impact very

profoundly on the UK's relations with Russia but it's also going to I

think impact pretty deeply on the way the world views the Russian

state. All the secrets about Litvinenko,

including his exact relationship with British intelligence may still

not be revealed in the inquiry, but much of the truth does now seem

likely to emerge whatever the political fallout.

Joining joining me now is Alexander Litvinenko's widow, Marina.

Marina, did you ever think that you would finally get a public inquiry?

Actually, yes. I did feel it. It's helped me to be, not calm, but to

believe that one day I'd have justice. It's took quite a long time

to wait for, almost one year from the first time, last July, when

Theresa May just decline the rightful public inquiry. It was

quite difficult period for all of us. Then suddenly the decision was

changed? Yes. I would say it was expected but it was suddenly and

particularly in this time when it's everything's strong, talking about

Ukraine and Russia. Do you think that Vladimir Putin

will be angered by the decision to hold an inquiry? I can't charge him

personal, but I believe this decision will be very hard for

somebody in Russia. You think that you know who did this

to your husband? I can't say who exactly but it would be much easier

to know after this public inquiry. But no matter that the public

inquiry does identify the perpetrators of this crime, a public

inquiry is not going to put anyone behind bars is it? No. Any trial

that we have can't put anybody for trial personal because not Lugovoi,

not named suspects. They are in Russia and it's not possible to get

them to trial to London. It's only evidence what we have and the

investigation what was done by Scotland Yard finally it will be

came to public opinion and after this, people will certainly know

about what happened. Of course, as you say, there's no question at the

moment, I imagine, of any form of extradition no matter what the

public inquiry finds, so therefore, for you, is it enough, do you think,

to have a very clear idea of who killed your husband and leave it at

that? I'm wondering what you think the public inquiry will achieve

beyond that? I started the inquest after five years of Sasha's death.

It's took me five years to go to this kind of persecution, I would

say, because no other trial I can get result suspects and then this

inquest started to be slow and slow and slow because evidence where

finally somebody could see something very strong. The poisoning of your

husband was quite blatant an obvious, wasn't it? What do you

think the purpose of it was in terms of who was the message for? It's

difficult again to discuss because using polonium, it's just absolutely

irresponsible. People just gives this order to kill my husband

without any even decision what polonium harmful, not just for one

person. I would say many people in London. How many people as well. Do

you think though, you say you were contaminated too and that was not on

purpose. But I've talked to you about this a while ago before and

you were uncertain. Do you feel possibly that your own life is in

danger daily in London? What I'm in a position to solve is to have this

case done anyway, trial or inquest or public inquiry because any truth

in the end we will have. We will have some evidence or some verdict,

who is behind this crime. It helps people to be sure. It might not

happen again without this. Lump feel safe though? -- will you ever feel

safe though? I would say yes. Thank you very much for joining us.

Returning to our earlier story, in the Netherlands today, Prime

Minister Mark Rutte warned that attitudes towards Russia had changed

fundamentally since the disaster. Anna Holligan reports.

A serene, stable nation, caught up in somebody else's conflict.

This shrine growing every day now marks the spot at departures III,

the point from which the dead departed.

This started with just a couple of bouquets on Thursday evening and, as

more and more people heard about the disaster, just look at the scale of

this shrine now. Schipol is an international hub airport. Hundreds

of passengers pass through these doors every day and many have been

stopping off here to pay their respects to the passengers who were

on board that flight, passengers just like them, many going on

holiday. If you have a look down here, you can see international

nature of the tributes. Beyond the pockets of personal

sadness, there is a widely held public sentiment that Dutch

officials are being too soft. Earlier, the Prime Minister, Mark

Rutte, took a harder line against Russia.

TRANSLATION: In our view, something has changed fundamentally there

since Thursday. According to the Netherlands, all options are on the

table, economic, financial and political. Our priority is to get

the people back and the best possible independent investigation

and justice. The Netherlands is a calm, reserved

country, but a front-page image has moved emotions from shock and

sadness to fury and frustration, combined with disbelief.

Since Thursday, I've been thinking, how horrible it must have been. The

final moments of their lives when they knew the plane was going down.

Did they lock hands with their loved ones? Did they hold their children

close to their hearts? Did they look each other in the eyes, one final

time, in a wordless goodbye? We will never know.

Many here in this serene stable nation feels as though they've been

dragged into someone else's war. The church is going to hold a vigil at 8

o'clock. We are in sadness. After that, there'll be a request for

retaliation. There were quite a lot of Amsterdam people on the plane. We

are a small community so almost everybody in our surroundings are

affected by this, by the crash. So I feel that an entire city is grieving

about this. Tomorrow, the bodies will be flown

into Eindhoven. Families will wait alongside the Dutch King and Queen.

None of them will know whether the coffins will contain their

relatives. The list of names of the 193 missing Dutch victims was

published in the papers this morning. Some of the remains still

lie in eastern Ukraine. At this Dutch military facility just

outside Hilversum, they have been making preparations for the arrival

of the remains. Soon, the eyes of the internationally affected

community will be on this place over the coming days, weeks, perhaps

months. The bodies of those passengers will be driven through

these gates to be identified by forensics before they can finally be

reunited with their families. Tomorrow has been declared a

national day of mourning. The first in the Netherlands since 1962 when

the Queen died. This is a small nation, one that isn't accustomed to

such immense misery. Anna Holligan. Marietje Schaake is a

Dutch member of the European Parliament and a member of the

committee on Foreign Affairs, as well as a committee of international

trade and she is in Brussels. Marietje Schaake, do you think there

is any relief for people in the Netherlands for knowing that some of

the bodies will be repatriated tomorrow?

Well, after all the intense sorrow of the loss of so many innocent

people, particularly so many children after the downing of this

plane, of course people want to have an opportunity to say a dignified

goodbye to their loved ones. But I find it hard to understand how

people can find peace of mind after seeing tampering with the site of

the downing of the plane, looting of the site and personal belongings of

the innocent victims. It's actually appalling that this has happened and

I believe that there is a very deep mix of grief and anger in the

Netherlands that will last for a very long time. Now, in Anna

Holligan's report there, we heard from a young man who said that the

country was in mourning but there was a feeling that there would need

to be some retaliation. I was wondering if there is a terrible

feeling of impotence in the country when, exactly what you are saying,

at the fact that you have no control of what is happening in eastern

Ukraine? That is why we asked firmly, our Government does and we

have today in the European Parliament, for European support for

an international inquiry at the crash site and with all the evidence

that is available and unrestricted access to the site. Again, it is

disgraceful that it took a UN Security Council resolution

disgraceful that it took a UN sure that that process started

moving. So all those who have any influence over the people who're at

and around the site must provide their cooperation to uncover every

detail on this horrible downing of the plane so that we can find out

what exactly happened and that we can talk about how to find justice,

not only for the victims and the immediate loved ones of those

innocent victims, but also for the acquiring of justice for the Dutch,

for all the other ones who've fallen. This is a disaster, a

catastrophe that has impacted many, many countries. We've received

condolences and messages of sympathy from all over the world, and our

priority is to seek justice and to bring those responsible and their

enablers, to accountability. Finally. Today, European Foreign

Ministers agreed to step up the existing sanctions they placed on

Russia. What signal does this give to Vladimir Putin? Would you have

liked to see tougher sanctions today? The perspective of new

sanctions still has to be agreed on and what is essential now is that

Europe stands unite and makes a clear desession on whether it seeks

to continue with trade as if it's business as usual with energy

relations as if it's business as usual or whether we'll finally come

Taggart and take a tough stance for fundamental values, for

international justice, which has not only been challenged through this

terrible downing of the aeroplane, but has been challenged in a number

of incidents over the past couple of months, and it's very, very

important that we reassess our stance towards the Kremlin and

towards events that are happening in our eastern neighbourhood and I

believe it's essential that Europe acts as a strong leader in this

world and the challenges that we are seeing after the downing of the

plane in the context of the annexation of Crimea of the unrest

in the eastern Ukraine, but also of broader questions of international

relations, merit a strong response from Europe, and I think we have to

focus on that all together. Thank you very much. Even more urgently

than we did before. Thank you very much.

Now, tonight, a number of airlines, including Delta, Air Canada, Air

France, Lufthansa and KLM, have suspended flights to an

international airport in response to a rocket strike that landed a mile

from the airport today. There was no let-up in the fighting that's

claimed more than 600 lives. 100 of them, according to Gazan officials

are children. John Kerry and Ban Ki-Moon are

engaged in rounds of talks in Israel and Egypt and tomorrow, Ban Ki-Moon

heads for the West Bank. So far, there is no sign of a ceasefire,

only perhaps the possibility of a humanitarian truce lasting several

days to get aid to the Palestinian territory.

I'm joined by the UN Special Envoy for the Palestinian conflict

negotiations and also the former US Ambassador to Israel.

You left just three weeks ago and when you left, you said you were

battered by the whole situation. Did you simply give up?

No, we didn't give up. We reached a point where the parties themselves

gave up. The Israelis suspended the negotiations because the

Palestinians had decided to reconcile with Hamas which is not

interested in negotiations. There wasn't anything more that we could

do. For nine months, we negotiated intensively at the highest levels

with the Secretary of State heavily involved. I think he made 16 trips

to the region in that process, so giving up was not words in our

vocabulary. But if you thought it was hopeless three weeks ago, what

do you think of it now? Do you think the Israelis were right to start

this offensive in Gaza? They didn't start the offensive.

Take the offensive into Gaza, sorry? With the ground invasion and air

power as well? Yes, the offensive was started by

Hamas rockets into Israeli cities, but the situation obviously is

horrific and it grows worse by the day. It's the opposite of

peace-making. It's all about war-making at the moment. The only

hope in this horrendous situation is that both sides will come to

understand what Secretary Kerry was telling them from the outset of our

efforts to try to Makepeace which was that the status quo is

unsustainable and that chronic conflict is not a way... Well, you

talk about chronic conflict. The figures are 600 dead on the

Palestinian side, more than 30 dead on the Israeli side. But let's look

at the UN figures. Of the Palestinians who've died, the UN

says 75% are civilian, 25 from one family, 100 children, two hospitals.

Is that disproportionate? You know, I'm not here to make

judgments about these kinds of things. I think it's an horrendous

situation that civilian casualties have happened, the casualties are

terrible and I wish that they were not happening, I also wish Hamas

wouldn't use civilians as their shields and hide their rockets. But

the French Foreign Minister's called it a massacre and the opposition

leader Ed Miliband in Washington said that Israel was wrong to go

into Gaza? Gaza. Do you think that Israel should have held back this

time? Look, I don't know what you want from me, I'm not here to make

judgments on either side. But you are here as a man who knows the area

well, you have been negotiating. Let me finish my answer, please. I think

that again, if you look at the record, there were several attempts

at ceasefires. I do not believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu was a man

who wanted to go into Gaza on the ground. He was seeking ways to

achieve calm before that. But the rocketing of Israeli cities and the

attacks through the tunnels were such that it got to the point that

he couldn't get a ceasefire so he decided to move in and try to

destroy the tunnels. You know, this is the nature of war that both sides

are engaged in, in a process that leads to escalation. But is it going

to make Israel for targeted? It's just not an acceptable situation.

That's why we have to try to get a ceasefire as soon as possible.

But, is it going to make Israel more secure? Right now, Israel looks

isolated by virtue of the fact that the very few flights if any go into

the airport. Is Israel going to be more secure by making more enemies

of Palestinians? Well, clearly, the only way to ensure lasting security

is to try to get peace. That's what we were trying to do, but I think

that you need to answer the question - if you think there's a better way

to stop the rockets from being fired in Israeli civilian populations,

then responding with force, go for it. We have been trying to get a

ceasefire. I don't know what it is exactly that should be done.

Obviously, civilians, casualties should be avoided to maximum effect

possible. The question is, how do you get a ceasefire. The answer to

the question is, how do you stop Hamas from firing rockets? Thank you

very much. Well, the conflict in Gaza and the

high number of civilian casualties has thrown into sharp ways the way

broadcasters deal with images of the dead. Newsnight and other BBC News

and current affairs programmes covering war zones often warn before

showing the films that viewers might find some images contained in the

report distressing. But is it more or less upsetting to obscure the

faces of the dead as we do? The veteran war reporter Robert Fisk

writing this knell independent on Sunday this weekend joined the

critics who say broadcasters may be guilty of sanitising the horror of

war. Here is Katie Razzall's report. This contains some disturbing

images. An iconic picture of the Vietnam War. It might have looked

less powerful or brutal elsewhere. Brutal images too disturbing for us

to show. Blobbing the faces of the dead is censorship of war says

Robert Fisk. Censorship by coward who is avoid death on TV more and

more. The broadcasting code sets rules television companies must

comply with. Before the watershed, it says children must also be

protected from material that is unsuitable for them. Broadcaster can

be severely fined for any harm or offence caused. After 9 o'clock,

offensive images including violence, humiliation, distress and violation

of human dignity can be justified by the context.

Robert Fisk concentrates on Gaza and argues that by making a child's face

blobbed out, it kills them a second time.

Joining us to discuss this is the President of the Royal Television

Society and a defence editor at the Times newspaper, Debra Haines.

Peter, who are we obscuring the faces and bodies for? Television is

a very pervasive medium and it's heavily regulated compared to other

media. We have heard about the censorship. If you are turning on a

documentary about deaths in the Middle East you would know that what

was about. But you would turn on the news and know that war zones and

conflicts would be being covered? But you wouldn't know on any given

night. The 9 o'clock watershed is a critical part. We are protecting the

sensibilities of the viewers, but we should term the whole story after 9

o'clock. Before 9lock, it's a different story. Surely Peter has a

point about protecting viewers? I disagree. I really think that by

sanitising the reality of war, we are not giving the true story to

people back home. People need to know that if someone's being shot by

a high velocity bullet, it causes real damage. Do you believe though

that there should be a line or there should be more censorship of what is

shown of conflict? I think there is no point displaying gratuitous

violence for the sake of it. So I think that newspapers, for example,

take a slightly bolder line in that way and are able to do it in a

responsible way that doesn't protect people's sensibility. The whole

media is changing, isn't it, because with smartphones and so forth,

people are seeing the impacts of conflict, seeing people dying on the

ground. However, doesn't it make the broadcasters look very out of touch

with the times in which we live? Paradoxically, the fact that you can

see any of this stuff, YouTube could be described as... Well... YouTube

could be described as a long snuff movie but it's the very fact that

this stuff is available, shot on mobile phones and so widely

available that points up that television is a different role, has

a different role to play. But it's sending to the world some of the

things happening. But do you know something, I'm not necessarily

against you about your high velocity bullet point, I don't need to see

every detail to understand people have died. That is true, isn't it,

that you talk about gratuitous, but actually, if a reporter is doing his

or her job well, they explain what is happening with a certain

coralling of the images? Absolutely and I'm not talking about them

talking about every last drop of blood on the floor, but to protect

people, the face of an innocent child that's died as a blob isn't

protecting sensibilities, it's masking the reality of war. The BBC

has got it right before 9 o'clock but I would side with you to the

extent that I think after 9 o'clock Newsnight could be more realistic

and more detailed. Do you think that you have to have a new set of rules?

There has to be, as it were, a reality check? Well, I think we are

being challenged even by this, as you make the point, the footage that

is available shot on every mobile phone. I think after 9 o'clock, I

think at the moment television is tending to apply the same rules and

ignoring the watershed. I think we could be more honest and real after

9 o'clock but television's got it right before 9 o'clock. It's

interesting because we are used to horrific violence in movies. We are

becoming detan sized to violence anyway? Were to an extent, but the

reality of war would help people realise that war is not a good thing

and it might lessen war. The care with which you show that footage is

less effective. Thank you very much. Greg Dyke is undoubtably the most

straight-talking chairman in Football Association -- the Football

Association has ever had. He told the committee his forthright opinion

of FIFA, describing the congress like something out of North Korea.

But he hasn't told the world what he made of England's performance in the

World Cup and whether that throat-cutting gesture he made at

the draw when the group was announced meant that he knew they

were heading phone an early fall. He joins me now. Good evening. First of

all, at the Select Committee today. If corruption proved, will England

pull out? No. Well, we are all waiting to see Mr Garcia's report.

When we see Mr Garcia's report, we'll know what level of, if there

was any corruption and what level there was, we at that stage I think

if there is evidence of corruption would ask for a revote.

But in the absence of a revote, you wouldn't pull England out, you would

two? I don't think there's any point in pulling England out. I told the

Select Committee, I've resigned from things before and it's not a good

idea really. Yeah, we all wish you were still at the BBC! Do you think

it's proper to go to Russia in 2018? It's early to say that. You think

there might be an issue? You can't look at it in this week because it's

such a dramatic event this week. Can you imagine Vladimir Putin at the

opening ceremony? As I say, it's too early to know that. In the end, that

decision will be taken by FIFA. Let's have a bit of lacking back now

and deal with the World Cup. It was England's worst performance in more

than 50 years. That's not true. Were you embarrassed? That's not true.

Once we got there, we always knew it you embarrassed? That's not true.

would be a tough group. Said from the beginning, the throat-cutting.

So you were toast at the draw? No, but it was difficult. We didn't want

to play in Manuas and didn't want to play the Italians because it gave us

a very hard group. That is an excuse. Come on? ! You asked me

about the throat-cutting, I'm telling you. But can you imagine

that actually, England's regarded as one of the finest footballing

nations. Wasn't it humiliating what happened to England? No. It was

disappointing, it wasn't humiliating. What was humiliating

would be to lose 7-1, as Brazil discovered. We didn't lose 7-1, we

lost by two-odd goals which could have gon the orthis way. It was

disappointing and we would have liked to have done better -- gone

the other way. You are a man that has been part of several

organisations. Why are you protecting Roy Hodgson? Over 80% of

the public said we were right to keep him. He's got a four-year

contract. We looked at it after the results and said look, we think

we'll stick with this guy for at least another two years. So you did

look at the contract? Oh, we mew the concerns. We looked at the contract.

Well, we were not concerned we said on the day that you have lost, you

have to make a quick decision, we talked to people and said we'd stick

with Roy for the next two years. I think English football's got a

problem with a commission that's being looked into. They were great

footballers. We are a bit short on English footballers. Wait a minute,

you are short on good English footballers? Yes, 70% of the Premier

League are now foreign players, 50% of the Championship are foreign

players. We have a limitation and that's getting bigger every year. Do

you think that's actually footballers playing better when they

finally got there? I think they think they could have done. Do you

think they could? As I say... You are the chairman? It's small

margins, but mistakes, we could have got through to the next round and we

didn't and that was due to a number of mistakes and missed

opportunities. On the park? Yes. Thank you very much.

Well, will Scotland keep the pound in the event of independence? The

latest salvo in this debate came from a report from the chair of the

Westminster Scottish air fairs committee who said the Government

government tries to give the impression a currency unit is still

possible. It's not. The pound is dead, to which Scotland's minister

decided the pound is as much Scotland's as well as England's and

Northern Ireland's, as so it goes on. We spoke to Alex Salmond. Two

months out from perhaps the biggest moment of your political life, do

you accept that you still have a lot of people to convince? I think we

take the average of all the polls. It's now co Al elsing at 55, 45. Can

you make up that sort of gap, yes, of course we can. More than the

polls, it's more important to say why we are going to make up that gap

and why are we going to win. We are going to win because we are putting

forward the case about the future of Scotland. If the no-campaign is

hapless, negative talking about plagues on people's houses, if that

is so ineffective, why have they been ahead for such a long time?

They have always been ahead and comfortable with the idea that they

can always face down the quest for independence and they go back to the

reserve position which is the negativity. But before you get to

that point, Scottish voters is a vested interest in knowing for sure

which currency they'll be able to use, for sure who'd set interest

rates, for sure who would the banks would go to if the financial system

were to collapse? These are questions we've answered. We can't

get the United Kingdom to say that publicly but we know from leaks in

the Guardian that senior ministers say of course there'll be a currency

union, this is all about the campaign, we are just doing what

Alistair Darling wants us to do. But you expect people to be reassured

and secure enough to believe that they'll definitely be able to keep

the pound on the basis of an off-the-record quote to a newspaper?

No. I expect people to take a common-sense position of that.

People are big enough and strong enough in Scotland to see through

Tory Bluesers and threats during the campaign. One Scottish voters said

to me in Glasgow yesterday, if I go and buy a car and the salesman can't

tell me how the financing would work, I wouldn't buy that car. So

many big economic questions, the share of the debt, who'd set

interest rates, lender of last resort? All right, the share of the

debt starts at 0, the sets of interest rates is the Bank of

England, the lender is the Bank of England also. We can put forward a

proposition which is in the best interests of Scotland and the rest

of the United Kingdom. It's not a prop digs... It's backed by the

democratic. Why should the rest of the UK be content for this to be a

political pick and mix, pick what you want from the defence, what the

BBC, the lottery, the currency, bits and pieces of the existing UK as you

wish. It's a bit like a divorce and the husband who walked out gets to

choose who he wants from the -- what he wants from the furniture and the

partner has no say. Why should people accept giving you what you

want? Let's take the cases that you illustrated. These were your

choices. Nobody in England as far as I know is giving uprising or ill

will towards Canada because they have a tell merry to have the Queen

as Head of State in the real world incidentally with the real people of

England, the sort of people I met and on the ferries across the Mersey

this morning. They don't have a metropolitan Westminster. Perhaps

the BBC attitude that everyone ganging up on Scotland. But the

polls suggest that you won't win. Have you thought about your own

position if the polls are right or would you try again? We'll win. This

time. First Minister, thank you very much indeed. Thank you.

That is all we have time for tonight. Have a very good night.

Good night. Hello there. The warmth continues

for the rest of this week. Another fine day for most on Wednesday.

Might start off a bit grey where you