10/09/2014 Newsnight

Tonight, how did this become Team Westminster, versus Team Scotland.

The PM was virtually on his knees today begging the people of Scotland

to vote no. I would be heartbroken if this family of nations that we

have put together and that we have done such amazing things together,

if this family of nations was torn apart. We will ask the Chief

Secretary to the Treasury and Scottish MP which team he feels more

part of. What would happen to the UK's place on the world stage if

Scotland goes it alone? We talk to the former NATO secretary-general

George Robertson and the SNP's Keith Brown.

President Obama's about to tell America that its campaign against

ISIS will intensify. We will ask the former head of US counter terrorism

how that should be done? Good evening, if you are fed up with

the effing Tories, David Cameron pleaded today, you can think again.

This is totally different, with the tone of a desperate boyfriend the

Prime Minister ditched his pride and party to beg a country of people who

don't much like him not to leave. There are few things in his

professional life he could ever have wanted more. The reason is simple,

if the UK breaks up under his watch it is the only thing he will be ever

remembered for. He was in Edinburgh today and back next Monday. The one

person genuinely pleased to see him is one Alex Salmond who believes the

presence of all Westminster party leaders there is helping him.

News tonight about Lloyd's? That's right, after a few days where

Alex Salmond had reasons to have a bigger and bigger grin on the

campaign trail, a couple of reasons for the no side to feel a bit more

cheerful tonight. In the last few minutes RBS and Lloyd's who employ

thousands of people, just in this city, and right across Scotland have

confirmed that if there is a yes vote they will move their

headquarters down to England. If you live in this city and you have been

hearing economic warning aplenty from Westminster, and not convinced

about whether or not they are real, that news tonight may cause some

people to think again, or certainly those undecided to understand that

according to the no side there is a very real threat to them and their

incomes too. What is the mood tonight with the Westminster

contingent in full swing during the day? After Westminster I suppose

woke up in a nightmare having dosed their way through two long years of

this campaign, it did feel, here in this city, a bit panics in the way

the trio arrived today. By the same token for some on the other side in

a sense it provided some of that emotion, that feeling from the gut

that campaign has been yearning for. In terms of whether or not it will

change any minds, in a funny way, having been out and about today, it

felt like a bit of a side sideshow from the real campaign. You would

never have known something was brewing in Edinburgh's polite city

centre. But what was about to happen? We are not sure we have been

told David Cameron is here today. We know he's meant to be out on the

streets but obviously he has come straight to the financial district.

I don't understand why he's in Scotland, not actually talking to

the public, like he's supposed to be doing. When David Cameron arrived,

through the back, he knew the union is now on the line. Instinct, not

economics wrote the script. I think people can feel it is a bit like a

general election, that you make a decision and five years later you

can make another decision if you are fed up with the effing Tories, give

them a kick and maybe we will think again, this is totally different to

a general election. This is a decision about not the next five

years, it is a decision about the next century. Not so polite now.

There are just eight days until he could become the last-ever Prime

Minister of Great Britain as we know it. He has come to talk to voters to

listen to them, he has certainly spoken plainly and from the heart.

But controlled visits like this, despite the chaos outside aren't

exactly diving into the fray of the campaign.

Ed Miliband tried to show he cared, in front of a "friendly" audience. I

say don't choose an irreversible separation, choose to stay together.

Not least because it is Labour votes that have shift today yes. Nick

Clegg did at least brave the street. Whether a mercy mission or madness,

the trio were trying to counter the independence campaign's energy. Yes

shops on high streets. What has the last week been like?

This week has been busy, I thought it would ease off today as time went

on. But it is getting busier. The shop was really busy today. You

could hardly move in here at some stages. And visitors from the UK

parties gave Scotland's master of soundbites a key line. We have jobs

in Scotland protecting the National Health Service, they are concerned

this last gasp effort seems to be with their own jobs, that is the

contrast between the breadth and reach of Team Scotland and the

narrow focus of Team Westminster, that is why I think we are

decisively winning the campaign on the ground. It is not decisive yet,

but it has taken Westminster too long to hear this. This is the

vision we have for your country. This fight and it is a fight has

been happening for more than two long years. This high street was

covered in posters until they were torn down in the middle of the

night. It has been a lengthy and fierce campaign. I feel like I have

run an American presidential campaign. It feels like that. It has

been difficult at times, but at the same time we're knocking doors and

people are telling us every day I'm voting no. The real campaign doesn't

feel like it belongs to any politician. It belongs to the

street. And there is a sense something has started that just

can't be stopped. And that has implications for the whole of the

UK. Perhaps it started long before all this. Are you voting for

origins? Keep your voice down. Creating the Scottish Parliament

when he was in the cabinet was meant to kill the argument for

independence, instead are we witnessing the inevitable erosion of

the status quo. You have to remember this, when I was first examining for

this the Labour executive in Scotland, the Labour in Wales, led

by Neil Kinnock, all refused devolution, why, because they were

running before the nationalists. Where you are right nationalists

have got stronger and stronger. Wasn't it Labour's decision to

create the Scottish Parliament that inevitably might mean the union

breaks up? Well, it was the Labour Party recognition that the Scottish

Parliament eventually went on to say that there should be a Scottish

Parliament. We agreed with that. I then said it should be everywhere

else. All politicians have had a sharp reminder straight from the

streets of Scotland, voters wants and needs don't always stay the

same. With over a week before the vote, neither might the shape of the

country. That was Laura Kuensberg reporting

there. In a moment we will be talking to Lord Robertson, the

former secretary-general of NATO about the implications for a new UK

or for a new Scotland on the world stage if the vote goes to a yes next

week. But in the meantime I think we can speak to Danny Alexander, the

chief secretary to the Treasury in Inverness. Thank you for your time

tonight, we have seen an awful lot of emotion in the last 48 hours. I'm

wondering how you, a Scot, are feeling tonight, whether you share

that emotion? I'm a proud Scot and Highlander, I'm a brought Briton and

European too. Of course this is something which is about who we are

as a country, about our history, about the shared endeavours we have

engaged in over very many years. Of course there is emotion there too. I

think the principal thing today is there are some hard-headed economic

fact, which has raised its head in the debate today, which is showing

to people again just how serious this is, and just how damaging

independence would be for jobs, for prosperity, for the funds that we

have for our public services. Of course those things are facts but

they are also emotional too. But people don't want to live in a

country if we make the wrong decision and vote yes next week we

will cause all those problems for people. It was interesting hearing

David Cameron today recognise the "effing Tories", we don't know if

that was a slip of the tongue or very conscious, but he knows they

are hated there. The Lib Dems have 11 seats, you have not, could you

have taken a firmer role in the campaign from the start? I have been

taking a full role from the start, and making my views known from the

start. What went wrong, presumably it is not in the place you would

like it to be now? Right? We always expected that the referendum would

get tighter as you got closer to the day, but I think that what we have

seen over the last few days is a real crystallisation of the choice

for people, where you have on the one hand an economic risky,

dangerous idea of independence, which of course represents change,

but I think change for the worse. And the change that you get by

voting no, a stronger parliament within the UK, a stronger economy

within the UK, a safer, faster form of change for Scotland. That is the

choice people are facing and my sense is people are coming my way.

You say risky and talked about fears, I wonder would you admit if

the campaign was rather heavy-handed, there was too much

fear and loathing and not enough love and passion? You are asking me

questions as if some how the referendum is over. The referendum

is not over. There are seven, eight days of campaigning left. Those are

important days because there are a lot of people who are still

undecided. There are votes to win. And what I'm saying is the choice

crystallises into a very positive argument for the change we get if we

stay as part of the United Kingdom. The extra political strength that

Scotland gets with the more powers, and the economic strength we get

from being part of the strongest economic recovery in the G 7. You

wouldn't be here if the devo max question was on the ballot paper at

the beginning, everyone could have saved a huge headache with that? The

choice on the ballot paper is the best choice, it was a democratic

mandate. You don't think it was a mistake not to have three questions?

It was the only choice after the democratic mandate after the 2011

election. The SNP won an election on the basis of the the results. We

worked to make sure it was legal and fair. What people are seeing today,

on day when major businesses are speaking up, that independence is

such a risky choice for prosperity. Fair enough, let's look ahead,

Alastair Carmichael has said he will resign and help Team Scotland

negotiate if it is a yes vote, will you? No, I'm on Team Scotland right

now. I'm on Team Scotland and arguing for Scotland, to stay within

the United Kingdom. I'm as passionate and committed to Scotland

as any nationalist politician. Look the issue here is how do we make

sure that over these final days of the campaign, we focus on the

massive economic risks of independence, we spell that out.

Today has been a Black Wednesday for Alex Salmond, we have seen Lloyd's

this evening, we have seen Standard Life, BP and Shell, big companies,

big employers in Scotland who are saying this really matters for jobs

and prosperity. Alex Salmond says they are not going to leave and

wouldn't be building new buildings if they were? Do you really believe

that? I don't, I think we should listen to those companies who are,

and those employers in Scotland who are making the point powerfully

today that jobs and prosperity, as well as mortgages and growth in

Scotland all depend on making sure we keep the UK together. And they

may not leave if it does break up. If it is a yes, your job would be to

negotiate the rest of the union's deal against the interests of your

own constituents. That is pretty untenable isn't it? My job over the

next eight days is to make sure we present as awful and passionate a

positive case for keeping the UK together and make sure no-one in

Scotland votes... You are refusing to say you will stay in the job if

it is a yes vote? Continue to serve Ly my constituent, that is my

primary duty and one I take incredibly seriously come what may.

I will be on Team Scotland, today, tomorrow for as long as it takes. At

some stage you will have to choose between a job working in a

Westminster Government, if it is a yes vote, and an allegance to a new

country that needs you -- allegiance to a new country that needs you? I'm

not speculating about a result I'm confident will be a no vote. Because

the case for voting no is so strong. It is a case about delivering change

of the right sort for Scotland and case of avoiding something that

would be incredibly difficult for this country. Help me work through a

no vote. There will still be, we understand, more economic powers

granted to Scotland, income tax and so on we have been hearing about. So

would that make you then an MP in a Scottish seat deciding England and

Wales' spending when the rest of the UK couldn't hold you accountable,

because Scotland would be doing its own economics for the most part? I'm

already an MP for a Scottish constituency deciding spending for

the whole of the United Kingdom. If income tax is devolved to Scotland?

You are referring to spending and spending matters are already

determined in the Scottish Parliament. How much money is spent

on health, how much money is spent on education. Unnen those will be

included in new powers to Scotland, is that right? You are not going to

change any of the spending in terms of the new powers to Scotland? The

point I'm making is the spending hours are already with the Scottish

Parliament. So we decide budget all locations for departments at --

allocations for departments at a UK level and the Scottish Parliament

gets it via the formula. We have heard income tax is one of the major

issues for change, if Scotland is deciding its own income tax, and you

are working as chief secretary to the Treasury, presumably with George

Osborne on a budget, deciding the income tax rates for the people in

the rest of the UK, we can't hold you accountable at all? Let's not

speculate on the result of the next general election just yet. You have

been speck late on banks and big business, I'm asking you how your

position would work in either way? That is completely wrong. I haven't

been speculating on what banks and big business will be doing, I have

been commenting on the profoundly important statements those companies

have been making today. When a company like Standard Life says it

would, unfortunately, sadly, have to relocate its business to London,

that is not some sort of decision that they make lightly. They make it

on the basis that they regard that as the best way to protect their

customers under the new circumstances. When we hear Lloyd's

and other banks making clear they would have to do the same, again

that is not something they say lightly. They say it having thought

about it and talked to the board and the senior people in those

companies. When the people of Scotland respond to. That When you

dismiss it as speculation, it is a fact. When the people of Scotland

respond to that, as many I have spoken to over the past couple of

days saying all they are trying to do is scare monger and drive us

towards them instead of any kind of approach that sounds attractive to

Scotland, you are doing it again aren't you? I think the approach

most attractive for most Scots is the approach that says we want a

more powerful, more responsible parliament, but whilst remaining the

financial, economic, wider security we get from being part of the UK.

That is what I, as a Liberal Democrat, have believed in for all

of my time in politics. A federal solution for Scotland within the

United Kingdom. That is what is so excite beg the step that we can take

after a no vote in the referendum but I don't consider it could be

scaremongering for companies and people like Sir Ian Woods to set out

the facts. People need to know the facts and not just the nonsense from

the SNP Thank you for your time. Over the next week we will speak to

senior figures from the yes campaign in getting their thoughts on. That

what of the UK standing alone on the international stage. No better man

to answer the question is the man who ran NATO, Lord Robertson rob,

and Keith Brown the SNP's veterans' minister joins us.

What do you think will happen? The first thing that will happen is the

break-up of Britain will mean the break-up basically of the second

military and diplomatic power in the west. And destablise the west, just

at a moment when ISIS is rampaging in the Middle East and when

President Putin is waving his nuclear weapons in the air. That

would be a serious destablisation, which I think would have

reprecussions way beyond Scotland and the United Kingdom. It would

also lead to the dismemberment of the British Armed Forces. That is

strong, dismemberment of the British Armed Forces? It would be, the SNP

plan to take two frigets out of the Navy, and patrol boats out of the

Navy, and Eurofighters. It is 12% isn't it? The amount of critical

mass, the amount of training, pit lots, the background, the logistic

tales, all of that, yes you start to dismember the Armed Forces of this

country, you reduce the budget by ?2. 5 billion, that is what the SNP

say they want out of the UK defence budget. That is serious

reprecussions for England. You are talking about England, not Scotland,

they are not as badly affected? They will have a Dad's Army rather than

being part of the British Armed Forces. They will have 3,500 troops,

that is maybe 800 active combat troops. So Scotland will build up,

they claim in a plan for defence that was described by the retiring

deputy Supreme Allied Commander as being purely amateur. They are

saying it is more like 15,000. Eventually. It sounds woefully

melodramatic some of this, doesn't it, it is not really going to take

us off from being the second military power in the western world?

It is going to have to happen. Can you imagine the process of

negotiation. You are unpicking you know 300 years of integration in the

armed force, 300 years of integration right across the boar.

-- board. That will disrupt any effort we have. And the embassies.

You have talked to NATO member countries about the possibilty of

Scotland joining. What is the take on it? The key thing is that you

have got to be able to contribute security in order to benefit from

common security. That is the key thing. I negotiated the entry of the

former communist countries, the Baltic Republics, Romania, Slovenia

and Slovakia, that wasn't an easy process. Slovakia, the people there

were basically told if you elect Mr Mectia as the Prime Minister of

Slovakia, don't expect to get into NATO or the European Union. So you

know it is not a question of we have got an army, a Navy and air force

and we are in a strategic position and we will come in. If you are

going to disarm the nuclear deterrent of one of the founding

members of NATO you won't be welcome into a nuclear alliance. Take it to

Keith Brown. You are talking about automembership of NATO that doesn't

look like it will happen? Members of the UK Armed Forces currently who

want to join the Scottish defence force will be in horror at the

contempt of being described as Dad's Army. And George Robertson waving

around President Putin as a danger was the same person who went to

Moscow to try to get Russia to sign up to NATO. We can't take it too

seriously. We talk about break up, but we are breaking down just now.

We have an historic low of armed forces in Scotland, we have no naval

vessels, we don't carry out the basic patrols we should. General

Sharif said of the UK Government that they had cut to the bone and

hollowed out the Armed Forces we want to increase the Armed Forces.

Why would they let you in as antinuclear? 20 of the 28 countries

in NATO are non-fluke clear countries. -- nonnuclear countries.

We are situated in the North Atlantic, a very important strategic

position for NATO. We have the same standardised operating procedures

and standardised equipment that all NATO countries have, we are a

democratic country, the real issue is, most people hearing these things

bandied around will think there is no reason on earth why NATO would

not want to see an independent Scotland as NATO. You would keep

your typhoon, will you still be player on the stage? We would want

to play, the part we would want to play is a democratic, peaceful,

affluent north European country, a foreign policy and defence posture

commensurate with that position. That seems entirely sensible and far

preferable to the people of Scotland then as with George Robertson's

cronies being involved in illegal wars in Iraq. We would want to play

in the charter and play responsible international relations. If there

were strikes against ISIS in Syria, would you want to deploy there?

First of all the creedo of NATO is NATO acts together. If there is an

take all countries have license to support each other. But the nature

of that support and involvement in NATO operations is up to individual

NATO countries, what we have said is any involvement that we would have

would be democratically endorse bid the Scottish Parliament and Scottish

Government and consistent with the UN Charter. That seems a far more

statesmanlike response, rather than Tony Blair getting involved in Iraq

previously, that is sustainable. Can you imagine the kind of response you

will have from countries like Spain or Italy or like Belgium with their

own secession problems and saying we want to be part of that, they won't

thank you? I have served alongside Dutch marines and armed personnel

who get involved with NATO exercise with Scottish personnel. I wonder if

George Robertson knows how many Armed Forces personnel there are in

Scotland, it is up to Napoleonic levels. We want to undertake the

proper maritime patrols and air patrols and having reasonable

standard of defence in Scotland which we don't have currently in the

UK. We don't have defences we need, we have nuclear weapons and ?100

billion being further spent on nuclear weapons. It is ridiculous to

say you will be disarming the nuclear deterrent, it is

disingenious? I this is the SNP don't care. If it led to the

British... It doesn't literally take away our capabilities, it just means

we have to do a bit more? A week ago President Putin reminded the world

that his was a country with nuclear weapons. You wanted them in NATO.

You wanted Putin in NATO. You have made that point. It is a bit of a

joke actually for an SNP, MSP says that I went to invite Russia to join

NATO and they are the ones who are actually going to get the position

where we disarm. Thank you very much both of you.

We have three planned Bs was Alex Salmond's memorable response to the

currency question when asked during the last televised debate, much has

been made of the uncertainty of what Scotland does for money if it votes

yes, and what the markets will make of it. Today the Governor of the

Bank of England today the Treasury Select Committee that keeping the

pound would be expensive for the Scots. We set out the options that

await an independent Scotland. As much as it belongs to England it is

our pound as well as your pound. If we don't have a currency union

what's Plan B? I'm seeking a mandate for the pound sterling. I presume

the flag is a saltire, I presume the capital is Edinburgh, but you can't

tell us what currency we will have. The question of what currency an

independent Scotland would use has dominated much of the campaign. And

we're no closer to a clear answer. An independent Scotland would have

four basic currency option, the first and the preferred option of

the Scottish Government would be to join a formal currency union with

the rest of the UK. The second would be to continue to use the pound

without any formal agreement. Much as Montenegro uses the euro, or

Panama uses the US dollar. Option three would be to join the euro, or

finally it could always launch its on currency. A new currency is seen

as unrealistic in the short-term, and the euro is pretty unpopular at

the moment. So really there are two immediate options. Scotland and the

rest of the UK have shared a currency for more than 300 years. In

fact this 1909 coin is one of the first minted after the Act of Union.

Most think this sterling zone has worked pretty well. In terms of

trade linkages, existing bank loans and the wider financial system,

preserving it makes sense. It doesn't mean a formal currency union

is straight forward or likely. A formal currency union means things

carry on much as they are now. Scotland will continue to use the

pound and the Bank of England will act as the Central Bank and lender

of last resort for both Scotland and the UK. But the UK Government and

opposition have both ruled this out? There is no way they could entertain

a currency union with Scotland without having the full control over

Scotland's finances, in every respect. Of course interest rates

would be set by the Bank of England in London. Financial regulation

would be under London's control and crucially fiscal policy, that is to

say borrowing would also have to be under London's control. In fact

Scotland would end up with no independence at all, you could argue

they would be less in control of their affairs than now. In the

absence of a currency union, continuing to use sterling without a

formal agreement has become the yes campaign's Plan B. The problem with

using someone else's currency unilaterally is you have no lender

of last resort. When you get into trouble there is no Central Bank

that can issue the currency that you can go to. Not everyone agrees. The

free market think-tank, the Adam Smith Institute actually thinks

informal use of the pound would be preferable to a formal union. Using

the pound with permission means all of the same problems you have with

the eurozone, for example, banks know they

the eurozone, for example, banks much debt as they need and want to,

they can act recklessly and so on, and even if they are insolvent, they

will probably be backed up by the Central Bank. If banks know they

have to act responsibly and make reserves and they have to make

private accommodation in the form of clearing houses when they need to

access liquidity they will act more prudently. It is that prudence that

the Scottish economy could flourish with, that they would only get with

sterlingisation with an informal currency union. Scottish financial

institutions may not be entirely comfortable with no lender of last

resort. Lloyd's and other banks said they would move south of the border

with a yes vote. It could be prepared to hand back

great deal of independence using sterling, using the pound without

that is possible, I can't imagine those big business staying in

Edinburgh without a lender of last resort. Another factor complicating

this, technically all new EU member states have to commit to joining the

euro. At the moment the situation remains

uncertain, it is that uncertainty which is driving the currency market

volatility of recent days. Do discuss all this now is John Kay the

economist, an LSE fellow, and Anthony Yates, a top official from

the Bank of England and from New York, Gillian Tett, assistant editor

of the Financial Times. Do you think they will carry on using the pound?

Yes I do, I think on Independence Day if it happened nothing much need

change or would change. Some would say that is ridiculously niave, if

you are not controlling your own currency then it will all go

horribly wrong? There is an argument there but it is an argument that

says as far as currency is concerned things carry on very broadly as they

have for the last couple of hundred years. Anthony Yates, what is the

problem? Well the problem is that they won't have access to or control

over the resources that the lender of last resort has got, in turn,

backed by the Government to bail out their financial sector. The UK

Government would still bail them out, our closest partner in trade?

I'm not sure that is the case. You can see exactly this struggle going

on in the euro-area, trying to negotiate bail-outs for Greece. We

did bail out Ireland? We did, and the Scots can gamble on whether we

might repeat that after all the approbium and acrimony that will

come from political divorce, would they really think that would happen.

How is this seen internationally or where you are? Frankly from New York

it has come as quite a shock. The markets, investors and frankly

diplomats hadn't really woken up to the magnitude of the threat of the

yes vote until very recently, really this week. And frankly it looks

bizarre from the perspective of America. Americans have watched the

eurozone struggle in the last two or three years with a tension between

having a currency union without a political union and essentially

saying it is ridiculous to have this situation. The idea the Scots could

be trying to replicate the eurozone's problems looks peculiar.

It goes against the grain of all the chaos we have seen in Europe over

the last four years? Europe has certainly messed up its currency

union, that is for sure. There are two issues here and they are largely

separate issues. One of them is what money do you use in Scotland and the

other is who is underwriting failed Scottish financial institutions. Now

it is quite as instructive there to ask what these Scottish financial

institutions are. Because we're talking about Royal Bank of

Scotland, 82% owned by the British taxpayer, Lloyd's, which is not

primarily a Scottish institution. Clydesdale Bank, part of National

Australia Bank, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank and Santander. This is

sounding like it has already happened again? It has. It could go

further. We have seen not just sort of declarations about where banks

are going to redomicile, but also we have seen hits in share prices and

you will get a contraction in credit. Danny Alexander was saying

they have already warned they will go south of the border and of course

Alex Salmond has said everyone threatens this at this point in the

debate. Do you think from what you know banks do pick up and move? Well

certainly they do. I don't see what interest they would have to threaten

it, I mean they are operating for their shareholders, they are not,

they haven't any political axe to grind in this game. I believe they

are going to shift their brass plate, but that is very different

from shifting the operational activities which are taking place in

parts of Edinburgh at the moment. It is interesting, Gillian Tett, you

were talking about the falls on the market, particularly on Monday which

came as the real shock, and when I put that to the SNP they said it has

been a gradual thing, it is because of uncertainty, it would happen

whatever was going on right now because that's, you know, there is a

period of uncertainty that comes before an election, do you buy that?

Well I don't actually. What is very interesting right now is this has

been the year when global investors have really woken up to the concept

of the geopolitical events creating unexpected shocks. And frankly this

is yet another surprise that has come out of the wood work as far as

American investors are concerned and provided nasty reminder that

economics is not just about numbers but politics and culture and society

too. I was with Christine Lagarde the head of the IMF for an interview

we are running on Saturday. She points out this fascinating and

important issue that the world today is marked out by growing economic

integration and political disintegration, Scotland is one

example and Ukraine is another. That is a big problem for investors to

grapple with, as they look at countries like England and Scotland

and work out where to put the money. It is interesting to hear Scotland

and the Ukraine to be put in the same sentence and it opens up the

opportunity for more of this outside it. Is there a chance of a new

currency? I think they will be forced into it eventually. It is the

only viable and credible option that can be stuck to. I don't think they

could credibly be do anything else. You would imagine they would have to

stick the pound is what you are saying? In the next two years there

is no option, it would take two years to set up the Central Bank.

George Osborne can't stop them doing it, he can protest now but after it

has happened he has to let them use the pound, right? That I think is

the key point. To go back to what Gillian was saying, we are now

living in a world which as far as economics and capital markets are

concerned we are completely integrated. That transcends

boundaries and exactly what contract and law you are making a contract

for, where the head office of a particular institution is located. .

It isn't important any more and away from the way the politics of a

country is performing. The jobs Alex Salmond was talking about today were

those of Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

Point I am making today is Team Scotland in terms of its breadth and

reach sun precedented in terms of campaign in Scotland, where as team

Westminster seems narrowly focussed today on the leaders of Westminster

parties who are more concerned about their own jobs. Alex Salmond talking

today, no surprise he knows the Westminster boys play rather well

for his heartland what of their jobs, or what of the unintended

ramifications that a yes vote could have on all their parties and plans.

Joining me now to discuss this is Phil Collins from the Times and

Isabel Hardman from the Spectator. It is only when you start to take

yourself into the what ifs of next Thursday that you realise how

complicated things are going to get. What are you hearing behind the

ripples of Westminster about any plot now that is building against

the PM? There is definitely a plot that is building against David

Cameron. There are enough Tory MPs who really dislike him, who are

quite keen to use a possible yes vote to get rid of him. However,

what I found really interesting in my conversations with senior Tory

MPs, backbenchers, ministers, is there is a sizeable contingent of

the party who want it to keep a cool head and who will try to do

everything they can to stop a vote of no confidence succeeding in the

Prime Minister. Do you think he could survive being Prime Minister

of a lesser Great Britain? Yes, I think he could, it would be

incredibly dishonourable even for the backbenchers in their current

move in a moment of constitutional crisis to unseat the Prime Minister.

It is ridiculous, there is no obvious replacement so I think he

will survive T but to lose even one country is careless and his

authority will be hugely diminished by this. Authority is what Cameron

has over Ed Miliband. To lose authority is a very important

commodity for him. What he would be doing is to say to the British

public in 2015 I'm going to condemn you to the next parliament for two

years which is entirely dominate bid separating from Scotland and then a

referendum on the European Union. What kind of little England

parliament would that be. Does anyone at the moment think the

election is not going to be in May if there is a yes vote? There are a

number of Tories who think if there is a yes vote it should be moved.

Moved forward straight away? Some think there should be an election

immediately, some think it should be after Scotland goes independent. We

have to repeal that and put in other legislation. That would be the

smallest thing. I think we will muddle on and carry on. What about

Ed Miliband's position in this, presumably gets the criticism for

not having got the Labour voters out in the heartlands of Scotland where

they have voters? He has a more serious party but more loyal party.

His backbenchers don't have the same anti-pathy towards him as David

Cameron. Every plot against David Cameron is 50% of the problem at

land and 50% people hating them. With Ed Miliband it would be more

about the problem in hand and whether he could persuade his

backbenchers to stick by him. I don't think Ed Miliband has a

problem right now. Underneath all the attention on Scotland Labour has

had quite a good run in the national polls. Doesn't have a problem now, I

think he has in due course. To be the leader of a Government which is

elected with 40 Scottish MPs who are soon to be declared foreign

nationals would be entirely legitimate.

Just talk us through, without looking ahead too far, but we have

this referendum fixed for 2017, which would then be without

Scotland. What impact would that have? There is no evidence actually

that the electorate of Scotland are more pro-EU than the overall

electorate. It won't make a huge difference you haven't got the

Scottish people voting in that. But the authority of the Prime Minister

will have been diminished. What you have seen in this campaign is that

arguments about risk really struggle to work and there is a real strong

anti-politics thread to this whole referendum campaign. So if you have

got all the political establishment arguing for one side, the status

quo, stay where we are, and all the other side arguing emotionally to

leave. That can really work. You could get a replay of this. It makes

it a very, very tricky couple of years, and especially under a

Cameron Government. Thank you very much for coming in.

John Kerry has arrived in Baghdad to attempt to forge a new coalition of

the willing. Middle East nations united against ISIS, and to affirm

the international community's duty to protect Iraq. Obama will have a

speech tomorrow morning to pose an escalation to the military response

in the region, stopping short of promising boots on the ground, while

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Syria are united in their opposition to ISIS,

will Kerry help mould this unlikely coalition. Talk us through this?

We're expecting a significant milestone, there will be another in

two weeks on the fringes of the General Assembly meeting in New

York. We think we will get tonight an intensification of what America

has been doing. More air strikes, more US troops to go to Iraq to

train and advise, more Iraqi forces to be stood up. They are talking

about a National Guard that would include special Sunni and Kurd

units, trying to knit the nation back together again. The thing we

won't get an answer on is whether or not the strikes will extend into

Syria at this point. My hunch would be no, not yet. What position would

America be in vis a vis Assad? If they want, well it is an open

question in terms of legality, it is simpler with regard to Iraq. The

position is still complicated with regard to Syria. The other thing

that will happen and we think it will happen at the meeting in New

York in two weeks time is the issue of a wider inter-National Coalition.

It is at that point the UK might be asked to join strike, but the

neighbours of Syria and Iraq will be asked to do a lot more. Turkey,

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, those countries, they are the ones who

will be asked in two weeks time to step forward. Key things like

couldn't the Turk take slightly more control of that border. They will be

asked to nail their commitments to the sticking place on that. Frankly

we don't know yet how committed some of those countries like Turkey are

to making the new US strategy work. There is a lot of moving parts and

unanswered questions. Thank you very much indeed. From

Washington is Richard Clarke, a senior figure in the Clinton and

Bush administration's National Security Council, who resigned from

service in 2003 and remains critical of the US Government's disregard

towards the threat of terrorism. We talk to him now. You tried to warn

the Bush administration about Al Qaeda in spring 2001, you were

ignored, why did that happen? That's a topic one can talk about for

hours. But essentially the Bush administration came in with its own

agenda. And its agenda did not include worrying about Al-Qaeda. And

it wasn't changed by facts. And that is much the same situation that we

found with Obama in the last few months. Where he wanted his agenda

to be something other than worrying about terrorism in the Middle East.

For a long time the facts didn't change the White House priorities.

Do you think he actually ignored warnings then of rising Islamist

militia in Syria. Do you know that? Certainly, if you look at public

statements made by people in his administration, in the state

department, for example, and the intelligence community. Statements

they made in congressional hearings and inquiries. They were warning,

very dramatically, and yet the administration did very little over

the course of this year until the last month.

So do you think this is kneejerk now what he's doing. Do you think he's

trying to catch up for time or is it the right response too late? It is

the exact opposite of kneejerk. This President is known for being very

cautious, very deliberative, very analytical, very coldly calculating

and not being swayed by the media and not being swayed by emotion. And

he, more than anything else, wants to avoid doing what past Presidents

have done. Which is to make decisions about the use of US

military force in the Middle East without due consideration. So he has

been very, very slow in coming to this decision. Not kneejerk at all.

Thank you very much. While we have been on air Clydesdale Bank have

said they will also leave Scotland in the event of a yes vote. A sadly

that is all we have time for tonight. Kirsty is here tomorrow,

good night from all of us here. It was a beautiful day today up and

down the UK. More fine weather in the forecast. Subtle variations