15/09/2014 The Papers

Thursday Brailsford who says Sir Bradley Wiggins is close to a new

contract at Team Sky. That is in Sportsday after The Papers.

Welcome to our lookahead to what the newspapers bring us tomorrow. With

me from Glasgow is journalist Ruth Wishart, and in London is former

government adviser and academic similar bungalow while. Let's look

at the front pages. Scotland typically continues to dominate ``

Zamila Bunglawala. Most dominating with the prime Minister's plea in

Aberdeen to stay. David Cameron is on the front of the Guardian,

describing how the Prime Minister highlighted concerns of what he said

would be a painful divorce. The Financial Times, which has come out

in support of the No campaign, leaves with supposed recriminations

at Whitehall about the Better Together strategy. Scotland's Daily

Record has a pledge by the main Westminster parties to extend more

power to Scotland if the country votes No. The front page of the

Metro is a different story, leading on the murder of two young British

backpackers found dead on a beach in Thailand. Finally the Daily Mail

splashes on the cancer doctor in Cambridgeshire alleged to have

preyed on more than 800 sick children. We will start with the

daily Record. Ruth in Glasgow, its front page, signed by the three

Westminster leaders, Miliband, Cameron and Clegg, and it is their

promise to devolve more power to Hollywood, and also, interestingly,

in the middle, it states categorically that the final say on

how much is spent on the NHS will be a matter for the Scottish

parliament. Could this perhaps affect some of those who are

undecided, do you think? I am not sure. It is an extraordinary front

page, set out as you can see as a parchment with a pledge from the

party leaders. The NHS has become a contentious issue over the last few

weeks of the campaign. Health is devolved in Scotland as you know,

and so, the argument from the yes campaign has been, although it is

devolved with power over how it is run and it is run differently from

England, with the hip `` fear has been that privatisation in England

will affect the NHS budget in England and our budget in Scotland

is tied to that, so for the sake of argument if ?100 is taken from the

NHS England budget ?10 comes from the Scottish budget. Whether or not

saying we will have the final say means much or not, we don't know,

because at the end of the day, we have a fixed budget under the

Barnett formula, to deal with, and then it can use the money to patch

up the gaps in the NHS. But it means within a fixed budget that you have

to take it out of something else. Zamila, do you think this might sway

those people who are undecided? As Ruth said, the NHS has become in the

last three or four weeks really critical to the campaign for both

sides. Yes, but as Ruth said, if the same money was spent on the NHS to

take away from other budgets, people will read between the lines and

recognise that maybe other sectors of their economy may not do as well

because many will have to be taken from other industries or services.

But the wider point is, some people are undecided, but I don't know if

it is just about the NHS, it is the bigger point of the union. In the

formulation, they have touched on the NHS but shouldn't figure out

that this is the only issue people are teetering on, because the wider

issue of the union will be important for the pro union position. I think

in Scotland, lots of people are still talking about the issue we

don't know in wider terms what will happen, so it is nice that it has

homed in on the NHS, but I don't think that will convince anybody on

what will happen after the vote on Thursday. Also the issue of sticking

with the Barnett formula, just because of the Thursday maybe

everyone will breathe a sigh of relief and we are not independent,

it will not go away, this problem, we will have to talk about it on

Friday morning whatever happens. The Barnett formula, to be clear, is the

mechanism by which money is given to devolved parliaments depending on

their size and population. Ruth, the bottom of the Record, it says,

Record View, now voters can make an informed choice. Is there a sense

from some people where you are that the facts have been put before the?

We are swimming in literature about the referendum. LAUGHTER Are you fed

up of the? I am not, drowning not waving in terms of the information

overload. The Record is Labour supporting which is why at has put

this on the front page, these party leaders jointly running the Better

Together or No campaign. There is no question whether paper stands. You

have brought up an important point about the bonnet for Miller, one of

the fears has been that as soon as things are done and dusted on Friday

morning, the first thing that would happen would be that the Barnett

formula would disappear. For me a more important part of that pledge

is where it says, because of the continuation of the Barnett

allocation, that is an important caveat they have put in. If I could

quickly say, one other thing, they say much further up, this

declaration, this foul, they say the Scottish Parliament, it is permanent

`` this promise, we didn't think it was temporary, extensive new powers

the parliament will be delivered by the process and timetable agreed.

The problem with that is that these three parties have different ideas

about what powers should be delivered. The process can only be

agreed by the Westminster Parliament, and timetable has been

suggested by Gordon Brown, who lets face it, is now an opposition

backbench MP. I am sure his heart is in the right place but how much

leveraging as I don't know. Lets go on to the Financial Times and Zamila

in London. Cameron in final pitch to Scots fans blame game begins. It

could well go down as `` heeded out `` could go down as the prime as to

who oversaw the destruction of the union. People are wondering whose

fault it is if that happens. It is a very good piece suggesting the Prime

Minister says we avoid this pride painful divorce. We could amend some

divorces are amicable, but the article leads on the former and

current Cabinet secretaries warning how the No campaign would approach

the issue of fear mongering and how fear tactics might come across as

negative, so they would have do appeal to Yes voters and have a

broader campaign. That hasn't been the case. So come Friday morning, if

it is a Yes vote, yes, these issues will come back to the fore because

if there were voices and concerns raised early in government from

senior civil servants, they should have been heeded, this advice would

have gone to ministers, people should have listened to a broader

approach, because of course many people are undecided so they would

have had to have an idea of how you would appeal to people who genuinely

have not made up their minds, and scaremongering is in the best way.

Last week when we saw lots of ministers from across Westminster,

MPs across Minister of `` Westminster arriving in Scotland, it

looked like a last ditch desperate attempt, which is not the message

you want to send, now we really think we are going to lose so let's

pay attention. That would have been patronising to many voters, even

those voting No. Sure. Ruth, David Cameron has made his last pitch in

person, his last scheduled pitch, twice in seven days, has all felt as

if he is desperate now and will say anything? Well, I think that is

slightly unfair although I absolutely take the point that the

three party leaders suddenly leaping into action, all arrive in the same

day with a bunch of flowers, looked a bit last`minute. Also a trainload

of MPs, a handful of whom were Scottish, and many of whom were from

the House of Lords, probably wasn't the smartest tactic either. But as

far as the blame game goes, to be fair to Mr Cameron, words you often

hear Fort `` not words you often hear from me, what really panicked

him was that in all the opinion polls, one of the subtexts was that

the Labour vote was moving towards Yes. The blame game appear to a

large extent is that some of the other parties blame the Labour Party

for not holding the line. The Labour Party, more than 40 MPs up there,

that is the folk that seems to have shifted towards the yes campaign.

The Financial Times, the other story, a triple shock for world

economies. It is not just Ukraine and Syria, the Scottish vote as

well, it could send us into recession. Very rarely do words fail

me! When I look at this, there are three pictures, Ukraine, which is

the in middle of a bitter civil war, the middle east, going up in flames,

and the yes campaign. There has been a minor skirmish on twitter, but I

hardly think that the analogy is very role made. This is the OECD, a

reputable organisation, there is uncertainty. Any issue on this scale

would affect an economy of this size. They should begin in some

credit to suggest, in addition to other global issues, this might tip

the balance, but it has to be in proportion. We do not know what

proportion Scotland would have. The OECD is credible, the warning will

be heeded, compared to the other scaremongering tactics we have

heard. In a sense, it is interesting, that they have said

this now. Real concerns, not just scaremongering. We do not know the

scale, so it is disproportionate to say it is the same problem as the

Middle East. You will be back in an hour. Many thanks to you both.

Stay with us, at the top of the hour, much more on the referendum,

as the fateful day draws ever closer. We will have Allah says on

the efforts by both sides ahead of Thursday's vote `` we will have

analysis. Now, Sportsday.