11/08/2014 Newsnight

Tonight a political crisis and a humanitarian disaster unfold

together in Iraq. Thousands of people are still facing

danger. Four helicopters managed to rescue a few desperate refugees.

Special Forces take up discreet positions in Baghdad, as the Prime

Minister refuses to leave office. We will speak to the Kurdish high

representative in the UK, and the American architect of the post-war

Government. The fake Camp Bastion hospital with fake injuries, not in

Afghanistan but in York. How the lessons of war medicine are being

used to educate the NHS. We have moved to something akin to the

Ferrari pit stop, where there is a whole team of people stood around

the patient ready immediately to get to grips with what they have to do.

Good evening, tonight there is stand-off in Baghdad. Nouri

Al-Maliki is defiantly refusing to stand down as Prime Minister in

favour of fellow Shia Haider Al-Abadi, calling it dangerous

breach of the constitution. It is not clear if the troops on the

streets are loyal to Maliki or not. But the vacuum in Government adds

more instability as the Islamic State fighters hold their positions

despite US air strikes. The US administration is providing weapons

to the Kurdish Peshmerga fighting IS, but it gives little relief to

those in the searing heat. It is a country that has become used

to chaos. Tens of thousands of the sect have fled from IS, and are

still trapped on the mountain. A Kurdish helicopter flies in across

enemy lines. There is frantic scramble, just a few children

escape. This is a bleak day for Iraq. On the battlefield another

victory for IS, yesterday they lost ground to the forces of the Iraqi

Kurds, now they have captured a town just zero 70 miles from Baghdad.

While in the capital a major political battle that will have

far-reaching consequences for the future of the country. It centres on

the simple question, who will be the next Prime Minister? This is Haider

Al-Abadi on the right. The man backed by the country's new

President, Faud Masum, by the US and the UN and the EU. Al-Abadi had been

Deputy Speaker of the House, but today was invited to take over as PM

by the President. It is hoped he will bring change and create a more

broad-based unity Government that Iraq desperately needs. But it won't

be easy. It all depends on the current Prime Minister, Nouri

Al-Maliki, a man accused of monopolising power, and following a

sectarian agenda that has alienated Iraq's Kurds and Sunnis and helped

gain support for the Sunni forces of Islamic State. Al-Maliki has refused

to step down, before the President's announcement he deployed militia's

loyal to himself on the streets and supporters took to the streets. He

said the decision to replace him was a dangerous violation of the

constitution, and said we will fix the mistake. He still has the

support of loyal party members, but other state of law members, part of

his larger political block, more crucially there are between 10,000

and 20,000 Iraqi soldiers who are loyal to him, not to the state of

Iraq, and they depend on Maliki, he controls elite Special Forces who

have been moving around in the Green Zone and outside Baghdad, they have

deployed in force and it is sending a signal to others that he's still

in charge. The US want him to go, the EU want him to go and the UN

want him to go, what can they do about it? It is interesting in

itself that Secretary of State Kerry, and the United Nations have

support against Haider Al-Abadi, a clear move against Nouri Al-Maliki.

At the end of the day they can't do anything. For the Islamic State this

is just the sort of chaos they want. Especially on a day the US revealed

it has begun urgently shipping arms and ammunition to the Kurdish forces

to stop the IS advance towards Erbil. American air strikes have had

an affect, boosting more rail. Islamic State have made dramatic

advances from Syria across northern Iraq. But yesterday the Kurdish

Peshmerga forces took two towns back from IS. Both of which guard the

approach to Erbil. Though today IS hit back by taking a town defended

by the Kurds. What weapons do they need? They are trying to defend over

600 miles of border so it is difficult for them to defend in

depth with the resources they have got. They have lost territory and

need to reinforce territory to regain it. Air transport would be an

ideal solution for them, as well as heavy weaponry. So what happens next

for Iraq? Tonight there are warnings if Nouri Al-Maliki refuses to step

down as Prime Minister the country could face new chaos. Iraq will

break up. There is going to be absolutely no possibility for Iraq

to come back together as a nation state, and I think it will lead to

further Civil War and the break up of the Iraq as we know it. Iraq

desperately needs a broad-based new Government to lead the fightback

against IS as the humanitarian crisis continues. What Maliki does

next could prove crucial. We have the Kurdish regional

Government's high representative in the UK joining us now. I want to ask

you about Nouri Al-Maliki later, first of all, can we just talk about

what is happening on the mountain, it is so hard to get absolute

intelligence about how many people are still on the mountain, and what

are your people telling us? It is hard to get accurate numbers and

something we are talking about ourselves. The estimate is anything

between 50,000 and 150,000 people are stranded. We saw today that four

Iraqi helicopters managed to get just dozens. And the Kurdish

fighters have brought some but it could be as many as 50,000? Yes, we

don't know the numbers. Tell us about what is happening with IS,

particularly the disappearance of women? There are terrible reports

about the barbarism and savagry of the conduct of IS or ISIS. One of

the things that we have heard about is 300-500 Yazidi women were

abducted and are being held in a building in Mosul. Some reports say

they have been sold into sexual slavery, others that they have just

been used as concan you on-- concubines, this is horrific and

disaster. What have you heard that is going on with that and also with

other atrocities? We just hear terrible things, these anecdotal

stories, and of course the people who are being brought down from the

mountain in Sinjar, they are also telling terrible stories of dogs

eating dead bodies on the mountain. We know that the US has the person

merger but we don't know what -- person merger but we don't know what

arms. Have you any evidence on that? We don't know what is supplied but

what we need is weaponry to match what IS has. And IS has quite

substantial stashes for what they have in Mosul. Looking at the

question about Nouri Al-Maliki tonight refusing to go, what do you

make of that, and do you think can he hold out? It is yet again another

disaster politically for Iraq. You know, we were hopeful earlier today

when we heard that President Masum had appointed a new Prime Minister

and we felt that this was progress and now we feel yet again we have

managed to pluck defeat out of the jaws of victory, as the expression

goes. It is very difficult to know what will happen, do we now have two

prime ministers in Iraq, and what will the situation lead to? Thank

you very much indeed. As political wranglings over the Prime Minister

continues, the US has made its efforts to destablise rebels in

Iraq. President Obama made it clear it is the Iraqi Government not the

US who must solve the problem. There is no American solution to the

crisis in Iraq, the only lasting solution is for Iraqis to come

together and form an inclusive Government. One that represents the

legitimate interests of all Iraqis and one that can unify the country's

fight against IS. The presidential envoy to Iraq after the US led

invasion in 2003 is joining us now. Good evening to you. First of all, a

response to what President Obama has now said. President Obama has said

it is up to the Iraqi Government to sort this out, we don't appear to

have a proper Iraqi Government. Should the US be doing more? You

know I think first of all the President needs to be congratulated

for making a stuff decision to re-engage in Iraq last week. It was

not easy. My concern is the steps announced so far is seems to me are

not commensurate with the three objectives he has stated. You have

said that no boots on the ground is quite different from combat forces?

What do you mean by that and what would you like to see going in? We

know there is special ops in and air strike what do you want to see?

There are three areas we need to operate in. First of all assist the

Kurds, it now it sounds finally we have started giving them some

weapons. They will need stepped up intelligence, they may need some

assistance in planning special operations, sooner or later the

issue won't be air power it will be retaking cities, which will involve

special operations. Do you mean by that you mean there will be hundreds

of special American troops on the ground or thousands? There are

already hundreds there, I have read 800, I'm not aware of the exact

number. But it is more a question of planning than actually carrying out

operations. The second thing we need to do, once the Government is

resolved, and I think it actually will be resolved, once the

Government is resolved we need to help the Iraqi Government

reconstitute the Iraqi army. Maliki's most serious mistake that

he made was basically purging that army of trained officers, trained by

our army back in 2006/07. So we have to help them reconstitute. And

finally, this is the area where I think the President's policy needs

the most evolution, he stated in an interview with the New York Times

over the weekend that we would not allow t establishment of an Islamic

caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Well in fact they have already established

it, at least they have announced it. And that is an American interest to

stop that, it is not just a problem for the Iraqis. It is, as he said

tonight something the Iraqi Government needs to be concerned

about, but we need to be concerned about it. The establishment of that

is essentially a failure of American foreign policy? By the President's

own definition he said we would not allow it and now it has happened.

The question is what do we do now? It seems to me sooner or later the

President will have to broaden the air campaign against ISIS, the

Islamic extremist, in Iraq and perhaps in Syria. Let me take you

right back to Nouri Al-Maliki, basically Nouri Al-Maliki is, as he

believes, still the Prime Minister, but at the time, when he first came

to power he was backed by the US, he was lauded by George W Bush, that

has proved to be a big mistake, hasn't it? I think Maliki has

certainly made a real mess of a lot of things, in particular what he did

with the well-trained, American-trained army, which

collapsed as we all saw in the north as soon as they faced these Islamic

extremists. He was devisive from the start, he wasn't inclusive of the

Sunnis and that was failure of understanding of the Americans as to

his character? Well, yes and also it was a factor that we exacerbated by

the withdrawal of the American troops. It was the day after

President Obama told him we were going to have no troops at the end

of 2011, the very next day in Baghdad that Al-Maliki issued an

arrest warrant for his Sunni Vice President. He has been hostile to

the Sunnis and that is a very serious mistake. You have talked

about Al-Maliki's failure to make the most of American-trained forces

and the removal of the cadre, the officer cadre. Right back, wasn't

one of the problems was the policy that you and others constituted was

the purging of the Armed Forces way back at the beginning, the

debafication of the Sunnis, do you think if they had been left in place

Iraq would be in such a precarious situation? I don't think it

materially affected the situation. Basically what we did was build a

new Iraqi army, which is the Iraqi army that defeated Al-Qaeda by the

end of 2009. Al-Qaeda was defeated by the Iraqi army. An army trained

about the American army, and they collapsed in Mosul. In front of the

IS? They melted away because they were commanded by Al-Maliki's Shia

cronies put in there. Anybody who knows anything about the military

knows if you have an officer leading your platoon who you don't trust you

won't fight for him. Those four divisions collapsed up there because

the Prime Minister had put in untrained, in most cases, not

trained at all, Shia who were loyal to him. You are quite right when you

said he has pursued a sectarian political policy. That is absolutely

right. A real mistake. Sorry to interrupt, was he not in a sense set

on that path, or different almost free rein to do that, by the fact

that after this purging by the in coming forces of the Sunni, if they

were left in place we wouldn't have that? If they were left in place we

would have Saddam in place. And both we and the Iraqis would be a lot

worse off. Now the sectarian problems... It is a separate

problem, excuse me, it is a separate problem, you removed Saddam, you

didn't have to remove the whole group of Sunnis in power? It is not

a separate issue. Look we can relitigate it all if you want, we

are where we are, I agree that Al-Maliki has pursued a sharply

sectarian policy. One that he accelerated when he learned that we

were going to have no troops there any more at the end of 2011. And I

think, I hope that he will now find way to disengage from this stand-off

that your reporter talked about earlier that is going on in Baghdad

tonight. And that we will see a new Prime Minister put together a new

Government that we can help reconstitute this army. But if those

troops on the street are at Al-Maliki's behest and there is

trouble, you heard what experts said in the package there, this will be a

disaster for Iraq. If there is a meltdown in Baghdad, Iraq

essentially will break up? I agree that if those troops wind up

fighting to keep Al-Maliki in place then we are in a new ball game

entirely. I'm not yet confident that is the direction it will go. There

is certainly a risk and the risk is very great if it goes that

direction, there is no question. In terms of the in coming Prime

Minister, in who you know from a previous incarnation, have you any

evidence that he would be more inclusive? You are betting the house

on that, is there any evidence that he would be? I don't think we're

betting the house, I think the Iraqis are betting the house.

Although the Vice President has congratulated him. He was a minister

of communications in the very first interim Government. He showed some

courage there by proceeding to open the country for the first time to

cellphone usage. They are now 23 million Iraqis with cell phones. I

had a lot of dealings with him, but I don't have a judgment as to how he

will perform as Prime Minister because I haven't seen him for ten

years. He has been in a higher position since then as Deputy

Speaker. He comes from the same wing of the party as Jaffrey, who was the

first Prime Minister. He said in an interview in the Huffington Post,

that he would take assistance from anyone to deal with IS, including

the Iranians. You of course had urged the Americans to move faster

in combatting IS. But the thing is, if people like him feel the

Americans are not doing enough what is to stop him turning to the

Iranians? Well, the Iranians obviously it is a complicated

situation for them too. They certainly have, one has to say, been

strengthened in the last ten years in their position in Iraq. There are

reports that the Iranians also have told Al-Maliki it is time to move

on. I don't know if that is true. It is certainly true that Grand

Ayatollah Sistani has called for a more inclusive Government. He

doesn't represent the Iranians obviously. But there is a lot of

pressure are on the Shia side for Al-Maliki to move aside. One final

question. Surely if you have IS, supposedly, beheading people,

burying them alive, crucifying people, abducting 300 women if that

is not a cause for action what is, if you didn't go into Syria is there

any chance you will help sort this out? If I were advising the

administration, as I said earlier, I would now call for a broader

military air campaign against the Jihadists, not just because it is in

Iraq's interest, but because it is in America's interest. We saw the

problem when the balance tan took over Afghanistan -- the Taliban took

over Afghanistan. The identity of the group that calls itself Islamic

State and which has called a caliphate is not entirely clear.

Their stock has risen massively ever since they routed Iraqi forces in

June and taking control of sophisticated US weaponry which they

deployed in tandem with barbaric violence, including beheadings and

crucifixions. The self-style caliphate spreading

across Syria and Iraq is redrawing the boundaries in the Middle East,

in creating huge unease both there and in the west. Islamic State as

ISIS now brand themselves control significant parts of Iraq and Syria.

Including cities, oilfields and border crossings. At the centre of

the group is this man, Badadi, Islamic State fighters pledge

allegance to him directly, his only public appearance is from a mosque

in moss sell last month. The reaction to ISIS supporters is

precisely what you would expect from a cult, it is just never ending

praise for Bagdadi in this uncritical admiration of him. It is

indigive of just how -- indicative of how much the Islamic State

resembles a classic cult. With a declaration of a caliphate, he's now

the new figurehead of global Jihad. Vice Magazine filmed celebrations

amongst his supporters, with the declaration also brought Bagdadi

into conflict with others in the Jihadi sphere, notably Al-Qaeda.

Islamic State has fought with the officially sanctioned Al-Qaeda

affiliate in Syria. Just like Bagdadi, the founder of the Islamic

State's predecessor in Iraq had a tense relationship with Al-Qaeda. He

was famed for indiscriminate bombings and videoing beheadings of

his captives, tactics Al-Qaeda criticised for being too extreme.

Bagdadi appears to favour the brutal approach. These pictures of captured

Iraqi Shia soldiers before they were massacred. Al-Qaeda was very unhappy

with Zakawi because he was killing a lot of Muslims and engaging in

violent tactics and killing a lot of Shias, a lot of things they

considered to be unproductive, and Bagdadi today is the air heir of

that tradition and approach, which is completely different from tactics

and strategy and even ideology. Vice magazine filmed the Islamic State

morality police on patrol, unlike his predecessor, Bagdadi and the

Islamic State have been far more involved in the governing of a

functioning state, even producing detailed financial accounts. I think

for ISIS to be able to control territory in two different countries

with a large number of fighters requires a very high degree of

organisational sophistication. Their record keeping is part of that.

Al-Qaeda kept records as well, but for ISIS to do it on the scale they

have done with the precision they have done certainly suggests a level

of sophistication and meticulousness that is impressive. The test now for

Islamic State is alongside military gains they can keep hold of the

territories without alienating the populations under their control.

We have the Middle East correspondent for the Independent

Newspaper and author of The Jihadis Return: ISIS. First of all, do you

think IS is ultimately much more of a threat than Al-Qaeda? Much more of

a threat, yes. It is far bigger by a factor of 100 or more, it is much

better organised. Al-Qaeda was always a rather rag-bag of people.

It was never much of an organisation. Although when it was

demonised after 9/11 the appearance was given that it was a sort of

well-structured group. But it is very different from ISIS, which is

truly dangerous and better organised and more experienced. Do you think

it is fair to say that the west created Islamic State? Yes. I mean

they created the context in which it could grow through the war in Iraq

and then they did something very specific in 2011 that they encuraged

the rebellion -- encouraged the rebellion against President Assad in

Syria, taken over very rapidly by Jihadis. And this is where ISIS was

able to grow. Iraqi politicians were warning at the time, they suddenly

told me every time I saw them that if this war in Syria goes on it will

destablise Iraq. The Civil War will come back there. There was a

complete lack of understanding of that in Washington and London. Is

there also a lack of understanding that ISIS can be defeated by air

strikes? You can do something through air strike, particularly

around Erbil, this is fairly flat country, there is no cover and

trees. You can stop them on the roads. But it is not going to defeat

them. Other parts of the country are much more urbanised, more difficult

to use aircraft, you also need good intelligence. In 2003 American

aircraft were very active in this area. And then they had forward air

observers with radios calling in air strikes from overhead. That works

fairly effectively. But ISIS is very well organised, its fighters are

very fanatical. It has about three or four successful military

campaigns under its belt since it took Mosul on the 10th June. It was

fighting pretty well before that, though nobody really noticed it in

Fallujah. Is the best way to guarantee the defeat of ISIS a

unified, functioning Government in Baghdad? Yes, I mean it is. But how

you get that, that is what we haven't had for about half a

century. And there isn't much sign of it. In Baghdad people say well,

Washington is encouraging them to have an inclusive Government, that

will include some Sunni who we didn't share power with before. Hold

on a minute the Sunni have already taken the Sunni provinces so you are

offering to share power with people who have already taken power where

they live. Then you have the Sunni politicians in Baghdad who don't

dare go back to their homes because their heads will be cut off. Even if

there is a unified Government in Baghdad, in that Government there

will not be Sunnis who will be able to take onnies skis? -- on ISIS? No,

Al-Maliki going is not a piece of magic which is going to solve these

problems. I mean Al-Maliki was a terrible Prime Minister, he's

responsible for many things have have gone wrong. But he's not

responsible for everything. And things aren't just going to click

into place because he goes. There is a hope among the Shia and foreign

Governments that Al-Maliki goes, the Sunni community gets what it wants,

then it turns on ISIS and kicks them out. And we have an agreement. But I

mean just look who they are facing, ISIS is well prepared for a stab in

the back, anybody who tries to do that to them they will kill them

first. So I don't think this is going to happen. There isn't any

sign of the Sunni community redividing and part of it pledging

its loyalty to Baghdad instead of the new caliphate. Thank you very

much indeed. Now as the British Army's withdrawal from Afghanistan

approaches, there is much talk of their legacy in the region. What of

the legacy at home? Emergency medicine doctors we have been

investigating about the valuable experience it might bring to the

NHS. At a fake Camp Bastion that craters for researching entirely

fake injuries. This is Camp Bastion Hospital but it

isn't Afghanistan it is York. Here the army have set up a simulation of

the entire military field hospital, these medics are the last hospital

team deployed to Afghanistan, where they will face casualties for real.

I served in the British Army for four years. Now I'm an emergency

medicine doctor in the NHS. I have come to see what civilian medicine

can learn from medical simulation at this level. It is a method called

macro-simulation, replicating exactly the conditions medics will

face in the field. Today starts with a helicopter rescue. I'm now in a

replica of the helicopter they use out in Afghanistan. The team behind

me are prepping to receive three casualties that are going to arrive

all at the same time. This place is about to get incredibly busy. The

scenario is so realistic that the medics are engulfed in the roar of

rotar blades and the heat of a helicopter engine. It is really dark

in here and there is even the smell of aviation fuel. In Afghanistan

when they are flying the lights have to be out. And that's exactly what

they have done here. I can see little red torches for light. After

treating their patients in pitch darkness, the medics have to

transfer them the moment the helicopter lands. So what we have

got now is the casualty who has been packaged up and has been stablised

on the helicopter and is now being transferred into the hospital. The

casualties are rushed into one of the most advanced simulated

hospitals ever built. It is essentially a hospital with the roof

taken off, and below us we have got 450 personnel, and this is the first

time that they will have all come together to work. Every medic is

being closely monitored. In charge of the whole operation is doctor and

army Brigadier Kevin Beaton. He was my squadron commander in Bosnia and

inspired me to study medicine. He spent the last ten years ago driving

innovations in medical training. We use video and sound to record all of

the activities at the various stages. That screen is showing a

patient actually being treated inside the helicopter simulator. And

we can switch between all of these different scenes and shots of what

is going on to get a feel for how each department is performing. I

think the best analogy that we have found is we have moved from driving

your car into the local Kwik Fit to now something akin to the Ferrari

pit stop at a Formula One event. Where there is a whole team of

people stood around the patient ready immediately to start get to go

grips with what we have to do. Research into macro-simulation means

it improves team work which improves chances for patients. Research shows

it contributes to reduced risk to patients. Another study called it a

finishing school for experts. The principle behind macro-simulation is

that it is as close to reality as possible. Actors and make-up artists

mimic even the most severe injuries. Here we have a casualty that we are

making up with multiple fragmentation wounds, mostly to both

lower limbs. We have smaller peppering, and then we have got

quite substantial deep into this side. It looks gruesome but it is

fake it is not real. I have never seen anything like this working with

the NHS, I'm an emergency medicine doctor and I have not seen this

level of simulation. But I certainly think we could do with it. With the

British Army withdrawing from Afghanistan, this precise replica of

Camp Bastion will be dismantled. But macro-simulation will continue and

it has already shift the frontier of medical training. We are better now

at preparing ourselves to give good medical care to our people than I

think we have ever been. Although simulation training is currently

used within the NHS, it is not at this scale or sophistication. It

tends to focus on individuals and specific techniques rather than

developing the skills of the whole team. There are 147,000 doctors

working in the NHS. But only about 6,000 of them attended simulation

training last year. The NHS has its own set of unique challenges, but

the evidence from the military indicates that macro-simulation on

this scale brings real benefits both to medical teams and their patients.

Having witnessed it in action today I'm personally convinced it has the

potential to make a real difference in the NHS.

It is fewer than 40 days until the Scottish referendum and displaying a

split personality of which Robert Louis Stevenson would be proud of,

according to a study voters are anxious about the outcomes of

independence but support has increased. On the all-important

question of the economy the survey finds the referendum campaign has

increased the amount of voters who think the economy will be worse

under independence, from 34% in the last four years to 44%, on currency

76% want to keep the pound. It is the most detailed piece of research

ahead of the vote. Here is a summary of the findings.

The three years that lie ahead of us now, are the most important in our

party's history and our country's recent history. Delegates, it is

game on for Scotland! Yes I certainly seemed to have mobilised

the potential vote, this level of support for independence is towards

the high end of what it has been over the last dozen years or so. But

it is not clear that the yes side have made the kind of progress that

will be needed to move from the baseline support to the 50% vote

they need in the referendum. You can't tell us what currency we

will have. Alastair you will pick the pound because it belongs to

Scotland as much as England. No other question you ask about

independence demarcates voters into the yes and no camps as sharply as

the economic issue does. The economic issue has been prominent

from the beginning of the referendum campaign, it has always looked like

the most important issue, it has simply become more important when

deciding to vote for origins independence.

I'm well aware of the fact that whilst many people have made up

their minds, there is still quite a large number of people who have

still to decide which way they are going on the referendum. We have

just six weeks to convince them. I relish the position of being the

underdogs, I think that is the best position to be in a campaign. The

trick is not to be ahead today, it is to be ahead on September 18th,

that is what we intend to do. To discuss an independent Scotland

economic prospects from Inverness, we have an economist and currency

expert, Sir Ronald McDonald. And we have our guest who is campaigning

for independence. If more people this year believe the economy would

be worse under independence than they did last year, less than 40

days out you have lost the argument? That is not what we are saying on

the ground. We are engaging with business and the public. What we are

seeing is when we explain in Scotland we generate more tax per

head, we have got higher GDP, 15%, than the rest of the UK, and

Scotland has a vibrant economy, not just oil and gas, life science,

manufacturing, education, financial service, we see people coming

towards the economic argument that is moving towards yes. That is

anecdotal evidence from you on the streets, that is not the same as

having a proper survey of attitudes and views of Scots? Well in terms of

polls and surveys I will leave crystal ball gazing to the

politicians and the pollsters. We are speaking to the public out there

every night doing that. We are getting back that people are moving

towards a yes vote in terms of the strength of the economy. You have

studied the economy and the currency. Presumably this move

accords with your view, perhaps not from you but people like you engaged

in a Project Fear in the economy, maybe that is taking hold, the fear

rather than the facts? I think there is a huge amount of uncertainty

around the economy, particularly over the issue of currency. In

coming at this as an economic analysis, I believe that the real

issues have not been played out to the public. A bit late now? Not in

the currency, people don't understand why for example the pou

wouldn't be a suitable mechanism for an independent Scotland. It is

really the worst of all worlds for an independent Scotland. I mean I

can see why in the survey people have said they would like the pound,

because it will remove uncertainty. But because Scotland is going to be

such a different economy post-independence, it is a crazy

idea to set the pound as the centre of your macro-economic policy. Well

there is the view of a currency expert, so why don't the yes

campaign simply come out and say, look, there is a Plan B, and unlike

George Osborne, there is a Plan B, there is a different way of doing

it, it is with a Scottish currency, pegged to sterling. But this

insistence of hanging on to the idea of some kind of monetary union when

you know that all the opposition leaders are dead against it? It is

interesting that Ronald's fifth world was a currency issue, the

currency issue became the last bastion of the scare tactics of

Better Together. The Scottish Government have made it clear what

their position on this is. The UK Government have made their position

clear on this. The reality is no Chancellor of the Exchequer,

especially in an election year will make it more difficult for

businesses in England and Wales to transact with Scottish customers, it

is economic and political vandalism to suggest that would be the case.

Let's turn it on its head, would Scotland, using sterling, be good

for the rest of the UK? Well, it would be in a sense, but if we are

talking about comparing say a flexible exchange rate or separate

currency, which I think is what the SNP are on about, they are referring

to this 400 smell I don't know or five hundred million transaction

cost the rest of the UK will have to bear. What they would continue to do

is invoicing in sterling, all of the costs would be born by the Scottish

business and public. Moving on to the question of oil, so much is

hinging on oil, and yet the reality is of huge price fluctuations, the

yes campaign say a barrel of oil in 2016 will be $110, the Office for

Budget Responsibility says $98. You cannot base an economy on the

fluctuating price of a barrel of oil? That is what I said at the

start, we don't balance our economy on oil and gas. Without oil and gas

our GDP is the same as the rest of the UK. When we look at oil and gas

in terms of North Sea gas and as you know yourself there is huge finds

around about the west of Shetland, oil and gas will be here for many

years to come, there is no doubt about that. It is only the OBR who

think that oil price also go down, most suspect it will be going up.

Thank you very much indeed. Tomorrow morning's front page, just beginning

with the Times: That is it for tonight, we leave you

with a wit of free running which is defined as the art of expressing

yourself in your environment, usually urban without limitation of

movement. This was a French free run family doing exactly that on the

roofs of Paris, when they acted out the newest version of the video game

Assassins Creed, set in the French Revolution.

We're flooding on going watch. Away from tomorrow morning we