27/01/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics on Friday. �1

million bonus for the man running the Royal Bank of Scotland. But it

is only half what Stephen Hester got last year. Times must be tough.

Politicians are still queuing up to criticise the payout. One man that

used to stand up for the city is the mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

Is he still backing bankers? He will be talking to us from Davos,

the annual meeting that has become the snowy playground for plutocrats.

Alex Salmond has set the question he would like to ask on Scottish

independence. He has been accused of acting like the leader of North

Korea. Remember this? We look back at the poll tax riots, now more

than 20 years ago. They still shape the national debate over tax to

this very day. With me today, Daniel Finklestein of the Times and

Laurie Penny of the New Statesman. Welcome. There has been widespread

criticism of the bonus paid to the boss of the Royal Bank of Scotland.

He is called Stephen Hester. The bank has revealed he has been paid

nearly �1 million and it is all in shares, not in cash. It does top up

his �1 million plus salary. Politicians have been lining up to

criticise the payout, if you expect. -- as you would expect. This is

what the Labour leader has to say. It's a disgraceful display of

leadership by the Prime Minister. He has been promising action

against excessive bonuses and pay, and now he has nodded through this

�1 million bonus. He has been lecturing shareholders on how they

have to be more active in holding executives to that right account.

He owns, through the British government, 85% of the Royal Bank

of Scotland. He must explain, not least to the British people, why he

has allowed this to happen. Daniel Finklestein, it was clearly the

Government going to be getting a kicking when the bonus was

announced, whatever it was. It is less than last year, but more than

most people will earn in their lifetime. But does the Prime

Minister had the power to stop it? He probably does. I am against two

executives earning as much as they do. I don't think Stephen Hester

should be paid �1 million because I think it is a waste of money.

he is? Yes, �1 million and a �1 million bonus. I think you could

hire staff for less money than that. There is also the question of

whether he should accept it. There is a different question, if we want

the Government, any government, to start to manage the Royal Bank of

Scotland when they are a political entity. The Royal Bank of Scotland

is a commercial entity. I am nervous about that. Once the

Government begins to intervene in the commercial decisions, even

though in my view does commercial decisions are wrong, they have

priced it wrongly, I think what the Government does that it will be

difficult for them to stop. I think it is wrong, I think the whole

banking world needs to think if it is paying its staff more than it

needs to. But I think, in this occasion, I don't think that the

Government shark -- should start acting as an active shareholder.

Among these big banks, �1 million salary and a �1 million bonus is

peanuts! It's interesting that you say that governments should not

interfere in the working of commercial banks. Governments and

the rest of us, as part of the tax system, are required to shoulder

the risk that banks take. Stephen Hester is essentially a public

servant, given that we own 85% of Royal Bank of Scotland. The debate

has been that public servants and public sector workers are paid too

much. Should we not be encouraging him to take the average executive

salary? �28,000 he should take, the average. The Government should

definitely emphasise persuasion. But not control? The question is if

it should act, as it would now have to, to actually say to the bank,

you on not allowed to pay these wages. In other words, should it

become an active shareholder in the RBS? This is a different decision.

But the decision that Labour took when it nationalised the Bank was

not to be an active shareholder. It put 83% of the bank into the public

domain, public ownership. But it outsourced management. I am in

favour, generally, of what Vince Cable has announced. I'm not

against intervening in banks or regulating banks. I'm not even

against the Government setting a framework in which executive pay

will be set. What I am against is the idea of individual companies,

as a nationalised industry, the Government begin to try to run the

company. I think that would be an error. Mr Miliband, it is an open

goal for any opposition leader. We will hear from Boris Johnson in a

minute as well, from the Tory side. Really saying the same thing. I bet

if Labour had won the last election and were in power, that this would

happen and they would not intervene to stop the bonus? The interesting

part of the story is not that it is a Conservative or Labour decision,

it is that the banks still seem to be setting their own pay. What

Robert Peston reported today was that the Government did try to warn

the banks and say, look, this is too high. But the feeling was that

the entire top table of RBS would have walked out. I heard that as

well. The banks are basically holding us to ransom, as they have

for years. Given that we own the biggest chunk of the Bank and the

shares are already in the dirt, what would happen if the chairman

had walked out with the board? less worried about that. I really

am. Are you looking for another job? I could see you on the board.

I think it's possible to buy good stuff. You pay lots of money for

long words, like suasion. It's possible to get good staff for

quite a bit less. But you're not going to get it for her �28,000.

That is the average public sector pay. And would somebody run the

bank for that? People would be queuing up. But there would not

know how to run a bank! I'm not sure that it is so hard that it is

worth �1 million. It is more than I earn. I would do it. No it isn't!

How do you know? You told me! would be terrible at it. Are you

talking to me off her? To precisely the problem with the Government

becoming an active shareholder is that she would try to set these

salaries at �28,000, because it sounds fair. �28,000, actually,

�28,800. You can see it is causing a bit of a row in the Westminster

bubble. It will be talked about throughout the country. But Danny's

suasion will solve everything, when we find out what it is. The wealthy

and powerful have been gathering in the Swiss resort of Davos this week

for the World Economic Forum. That explains why we are not there.

There are more than a few British politicians present on or near the

slopes, helping to plan the future of Europe and even capitalism

itself. David Cameron has risked inflaming the Continent by saying

it is time for boldness, not caution. He dismissed plans for a

tax on financial transactions as simply madness. That comes as we

learn from the front runner to become the next President of France,

Francois Holland, that he is even keener on the tax than Nicolas

Sarkozy. Boris Johnson has rallied to the defence of the City of

London on many occasions. He warned that the tax is an example shorter

and political vindictiveness. Labour leader Ed Miliband has also

joined the debate from Davos. He is calling for action on the euro and

also a transaction tax, as long as it is a truly global one. Tell the

Americans that! It is that bonus to the boss, however, that was

described as the boss of a public owned bank, that is the talk among

the Brits. I spoke to Boris Johnson. Urine Davos to promote London as a

global business centre. Given that Westminster is intervening on biker

bonuses, that there is talk of a mansion tax and the Government

takes over 50% of your income if you make big money, how is that

going? I think people looking at London and seeing a city of

remarkable resilience, and I have been talking to lots of people,

incredible opportunities to invest. I have been talking to people that

want to literally put billions into the city. Don't forget, people say,

well, why are you sloping off to Davos? Isn't it a jolly? It is not

at all. This is a place where people with huge cheque books are

able to invest in projects that drive growth and jobs in London. It

is out of conversations here in Davos that we have �50 million for

bicycle hire schemes, �50 million for a new river crossing and cable

car. �10 million for an attraction in the Olympic Park, and so on. �30

million for eight seamen's Pavilion in the Royal Docks. These are

important investments could London, which help drive growth and jobs in

tough times. It is right that you are there, there is money to be had

for the city. What billions will you bring back this year? Which

prospects are looking good? There are lots of conversations going on.

To get back to royally a question about how people looking at London,

in relation to banker bashing and so on, I think there is a great

deal of enthusiasm. The world is fixated with the Olympics. The

heavy hitters are longing to come and see the city. We are trying to

explain to them some of the places, Croydon, Tottenham, Battersea, and

in east London where they can put their money and seek a long-term

return on investment. We are explaining some of the stuff we are

doing in putting in the transport infrastructure that will make those

investments pay off. You criticise government for taking long-term

damage for short-term political gain. I guess that is what has been

done over Stephen Hester's bonus, isn't it? Short-term political

popularity and long-term damage to London as a global financial

centre? Well, I am sure that is what has happened. You will have to

fill me in. -- I am not sure that is what has happened. I am sure I

will be filled in, it seems he has received a substantial bonus. If I

am correct, it is about �1 million. I believe that what is effectively

a state-owned concern should be run on public service lines. Everybody

knows that RBS was basically bailed out by the taxpayer in 2008.

Whatever the contract was between Stephen Hester and Gordon Brown,

Alastair Darling, I don't think people really understand why a

public concern has to try to mimic a freebooting private sector

venture, which it patently isn't. have heard you compared to Gosbank.

But that was run by the Soviet state. The Royal Bank of Scotland

has not run by the British government, but by an independent

board. If you had stop this bonus, in shares, not in cash, been paid,

what would you have done if the chairman and the board had

resigned? If you look at the Charter Rob Gosbank, you will

probably find that it did have a so-called independent board.

know how the Soviet Union ran! pretty certain of that. If you look

at the reality, it is the taxpayer who bailed out RBS. I have a great

deal of sympathy with Stephen Hester. He is actually a very fine

guy. I'm sure he has worked incredibly hard to do what he had

to do at RBS. But I don't understand, personally, how we can

justify paying private sector style bonuses to what is, effectively, a

state bank. And that is where I am afraid I beg to differ with you.

am not taking an opinion, I am simply asking you questions. His

donors would not even give him bragging rights at Goldman Sachs. -

- his bonus. If you have the power, you would have stopped the bonus?

When you have effectively got a public sector concern, and we all

remember what happened with RBS, the taxpayer had to step in and

foot the bill. People associated with the beginning of the real

financial crunch that set in, it is 83% owned by the taxpayer. You say

that, you would have stopped the bonus? In those circumstances, what

I would have liked to have seen, you talk about an independent board,

but I would like to see an independent ethos, a sense of duty

on behalf of those running RBS to the wider public. Is this tone now

coming from you about being harsher on this bonus and the bankers? You

have been a great defender of them until now. I am a great defender

Rob then! I have always said that RBS is different. Is it the fact

that the Poles are narrowing and that Mr Livingstone is neck and

neck or a little ahead of you in the mayoral election? A bit of

I've always said RBS was different. I have never understood how you can

have a Gosbank style set-up attracting the kind of reward. I

will continue to stick up for bankers and the financial services

industry in London. What has happened to you lead in the mayoral

election? It is vital we support them, as for the mayoral election,

we will see what happens and fight for every vote. I understand that,

but if you said the opposite of that it wouldn't be worth running,

but why has Mr Livingstone narrowed the lead or taking it away?

Polls come and go and if you look over the last few years it has gone

up and down, I will campaign very hard. A great case to make to the

public about what we have done in London, crime has fallen by 10%, at

the murder rate has gone down by 25%, it is one of the things people

will catch and they like about London. When people talk about

investing in our city they see a very safe city, one of the safest

big cities in the world. Be see a place that is growing, pitting and

the Tramp -- transport infrastructure the city needs, --

putting it in at the transport infrastructure. People were worried

about the Jubilee line a year or so ago, that is going three mph faster,

we will go up to 30 trains per hour, come April this year. Those trains

will convey people to the Olympic Park in great comfort. That

investment is starting to pay off. I hope very much people will see

that and I will be fighting on that record.

We need to let you go to lobby more for London, get some more money

into the city. If you take that slope behind due later in the day,

try not to break a leg. Thank you.

Last seen hobbling into the hospital. I asked him a question he

didn't answer so I will ask you the same one, Daniel Finkelstein, why

has his lead evaporated? The base problem for them -- for

the Conservatives and Labour are doing much better in London. I was

always surprised by the polls, whether you were really asking

people questions he wanted the answer, he will have a real problem.

Ken Livingstone is a poor choice of candidate for London. If they had

chosen someone else, Labour could be assured of winning, but I do

then they can be so Boris has got a very good chance, it will be quite

close. The answer is the polls are beginning to focus a bit as the

election comes closer. Maybe the remarkable thing is not

he has gone from being favourites, but that Labour isn't 15 points

ahead? It is Boris, I still cannot believe

he is mayor of London. He has been there for four years. Every time I

see his face ago, oh, you are the mayor. You're proposing running the

Royal Bank of Scotland five minutes ago. It will be fine because what

ever they do to -- because whatever I do to mess it up, the taxpayer

will bail me out. Boris's great advantage is he is entirely

unencumbered by political beliefs, he will say anything, do anything,

to get the public vote. Why, given this is a left of centre

city, there you have got a Conservative-led government

presiding, and iconic left-wing figure, Mr Livingstone, why he --

why is he not ahead in the polls? Partly because what Mr Johnson was

an mentioning, when he was saying the Jubilee Line is going through

mph faster, Boris, Tottenham was on fire, cordon was on fire. Why is

Labour not ahead? People are frightened of civil unrest.

would they vote... An interesting point. That is not the reason why

If I can offer another idea, it is because Labour don't know which way

is up at the moment. They cannot find their ideology. Can I point

out to 2 euros that this here, this is not a real cigarette. -- Canon

point out to our viewers. It is a fake cigarette. An electric

cigarette, the future. I am on one person mission. I am not sponsored.

Labour actually, a nationally, is doing quite well. Five point behind.

Doing quite well in London. I'm sure it is not to do with people

being concerned about civil unrest, the question is why it is Ken

Livingstone not doing better, he is a board as a candidate. Labour

don't have any ideas at the moment. We do not still say despite the

narrowing of the polls which is significant, he knew of that,

wouldn't you feel Boris is favourite to win? I am not sure

about that. Labour will have us -- have to pull some policies out of

summer, and natural alternative, if they want people to say it is worth

us voted for a Labour government. thick, yes, narrowly. Labour has

got strength in London and you cannot ignore that. Ken's great

disadvantage is that he believes in something. You are saying he should

be doing better. We will move on. The coalition says they want to

give you the power of total recall over your MPs. It is the ability to

force a by-election. Why has this come about? You may remember back

in the misty days of 2009 When talk in the Westminster bubble was not

of the euro crisis, capitalism, but the finer things in life, that

houses, second homes, mansions. And then there was the false accounting,

the MPs exposed in the scandal ended up being charged by the

police and sent to prison. Even after they had been caught they

were allowed to continue as MPs claiming their salaries until they

were voted out at the 2020 general election. -- 2010. The Jonathan

Aitken brandished his simple sword of truth, I remember it well. Neil

Hamilton in boiled in the cash-for- questions affair involving Brown

envelopes. In their constituents they had to wait for their

constituents to get rid of them so a draft Bill giving people the

power to recall MPs has been put before Parliament. Some MPs believe

it just doesn't go far enough, including Zac Goldsmith, the

Conservative MP for Richmond to joins us now. Why it doesn't go far

enough? It is not recall. Recall is a really powerful mechanism, it has

a potential to revolutionise politics, electrify politics and

make MPs more responsible. But true recall means allowing constituents

of either councillors or MPs or anyone in elected office to

petition to have their representative recalled if they

lose confidence in them. You hit a threshold... The trigger .. Every

governor has faced an attempt in California. There are lots of

attempt. Plenty of other places along -- beyond California. Your

objection is MPs themselves, or the Commons chamber, as a seminal role

in this proposed recall procedure. Under the current proposals instead

of handing power back to people which is what we call is about, it

is about handing power to a small committee of MPs who alone will

decide whether an MP qualifies. What MPs think is wrong doing is

not likely to be the same as constituents. So just to clarify,

as currently proposed, the recall mechanism could not be triggered by

the voters, a nest this committee of MPs -- unless this committee of

MPs start it. It is quite sinister, it was designed to prevent MPs

being recalled. It creates a lot of room for abuse. If you are a

maverick or unpopular MP, but very popular locally, there is a

possibility the committee will throw you to the walls. You don't

have a referendum, should Zac Goldsmith be recalled? If I win,

end of story. Under this scheme there is no middle step. 10% of

people signing a petition, calling for recall, which they would if a

parliamentary committee said they qualified, you go straight to a by-

election way you are not fighting on the issues of recall, you are

fighting in a national context. If you are a party trailing in the

polls, you are out. If there are bigger issues, tuition fees,

bankers bonuses, that is what you will be contesting. You will never

have an opportunity to say I have been stitched up by my colleagues

and not recalled so they give us huge power to the powers that be.

It is empowers the voters. This is the opposite of recall.

Are you in favour of the principle of recall, and you agree with the

criticisms in the way we planned to do it? Both. You're either have

recall or you don't. If you have it you have to do is seriously. There

is of course the problem of troublesome vexatious recall, and

you have to have mechanisms for attempting to prevent people.

don't think the committee should be the arbiter? No. The problem is the

whole idea of recall came about precisely because what Members of

Parliament thought was reasonable behaviour were exposed to the

electorate was not reasonable behaviour. -- when exposed. You can

drop the whole idea if you don't think it is a good. -- any good.

What is your position? I'm on the same page as Daniel. I hate to

agree with Tories are anything. It is absolutely .. It might not be a

real cigarette but it is not doing you any good. Her I have just

swallowed something. I am yet to meet anyone who agrees, this is the

worst piece of legislation I have seen in any context. MPs are

unsettled by this, they were hoping it would prevent any kind of recall

but they concede a sinister aspect of this and it will be very heavily,

if it is a pose and approved, we will get a moment through.

Still a possibility. I think we will win the campaign but it

requires popular pressure. There is an MP's club as you will have found

out. They kind of close ranks. seem to invent the Rome morality,

this is what this is about. -- their own morality. What seems like

wandering to the public might not seem like wrongdoing to MPs. Why is

that? A good question but I cannot lit you answer, we have to move on.

We will keep an eye on this. Very interesting idea.

Thank you for being with us, Zac Goldsmith.

If you liked it you called it the community charge, if you hated it,

it was the poll tax. It was meant to be a simple and fair way for

everyone who used them to pay for local services. Instead, it

triggered some of the worst riots in decades. For critics, it defined

Margaret Thatcher. They mark the beginning of the end -- it marked

the beginning of the end. Was it a Much 31st, 1990, Trafalgar Square

is turned into a battle zone. All- over, a new way to get people to

pay for local services. -- it was all over a new way. 400 arrests,

180 people and 20 police forces injured. The worst riots to hit

London in a century. What caused the mayhem? A little something

called the community charge. You might know it better as the poll

tax. Those riots happened more than 20 years ago, adults caused by what

is seen as a flagship policy of the Thatcher era. The idea was then,

every adult paid a flat rate for council services with some

reductions for the less well-off. John Gummer had been local

government minister and had a ringside seat.

It was that everybody should pay something, so that there was some

balance between demand for services, and the fact you had to pay for

them. Where did it all go wrong? would only work if you had a know

enough starting point. We all recognise that. -- a low enough.

The Treasury for not having it. If they didn't like the idea, they

didn't want it, and he did everything to make it clear that

they were not going to make the changes which were necessary, and

above all, doing it in Scotland first, which was a mistake, not a

purposeful one, but mistake, was a gigantic error. One of the first

things John Major did when he became prone minister in 1990 was

announced the community charge would be replaced by in levy based

We know it was unpopular and that even its supporters think it was

badly executed. But was it really a bad idea? It does have its admirers

in the taxation community. Community job was a wheeze --

community tax was a reasonable idea, everybody paid something into

public services. The problem was that it wasn't sold very well.

People didn't understand. It was not seen as being fair. As an idea,

it had quite a bit going for it. The debate about how we pay for

council services is still hugely controversial. Labour ignored a

review of government finances in 2007. This government has said that

no re-evaluation will happen until after the next election. So, is a

poll tax idea whose time could come again? I think the poll tax has

rather put politicians off local government finances. In a simple

way, council tax values have not been operated 20 years or more. If

we are to reform local government taxation, what is paid for local

services, inevitably this idea of everybody paying something cannot

be called the poll tax or community charge, but it needs looking at

again. With a few tweaks it could work better than last time.

first lesson for David Cameron is very simple. You've got enough

troubles on your plate at the moment not to do anything about

local government finance. I would not touch it. At some point and the

future, we will be forced to do so. Then, I think, one has to be very

much more... Imaginative. I suspect that the only real way of doing

local government finance is through direct taxation. In the end, a

local sales tax is probably what you have to do.

You are a big supporter of direct action, protests, Occupy Wall

Street, the City of London. This was a protest, it seems to me, that

actually had an impact. It actually forced the Government not only to

change its policy, but it led to the change of leader. Aviary

powerful leader. Has any other protest in recent times have that

impact? The thing about protests is that they change the mindset of a

culture. They changed political realism. I think when we are

talking about the poll tax, you have to talk about them as riots as

well as protests. They are a different kind of political direct

action. People do not plan for them. Rather than an orderly protest, it

shows the hubris of the Government at the time. It relates very much

to the hubris of the Government at the moment. There is only so far

you can... Sure, but we have had riots recently, in London and Major

cities. Some people would describe the student protests over

university fees as riots, or parts of them led to riots. I'm trying to

think where, in modern British Times, going back 30 years, it

seemed to be the one protest that was violent, in parts, which

actually forced the Government to change its mind. The real thing

that changed the Government's mind was that, underneath it, you were

talking about degree distributions, sometimes inside families, of very

large sums of money. To do that without proper transitional

arrangements, it was extremely unpopular. Not just unpopular with

people that might go and drawing riots, but also one popular with

the sort of middle England Tory vote. That is the reason why

Margaret Thatcher lost. Do you believe it was the beginning of the

end for Margaret Thatcher? At the review, that and the split on

Europe. It had so that he was. -- absolutely, that and the split on

Europe. It absolutely was. It could not have wood the General Election

with her, so they thought the best thing was to get rid of her. If you

think of a modern version of this, that has had the same policy

impact? I'm sure the current government can think of a lot of

versions of the poll tax riots. was asking if you could give me one

example. I cannot think of one. think because we haven't had one

yet, that is the point. The lesson of the poll tax riots is about

political hubris. What you saw in the video, it was interesting when

that man said that the problem with the poll tax was that it was not

sold well enough. It was fine, they were not selling it well enough.

That is the massive mistake you make with modern politics. It

doesn't matter what you say, it is how you sell it. The British public

can only be pushed so far. We seem like a nice little England people

that like royal weddings and cups of tea, and then... It I know them

too well, we are going to move on from that. Suasion, hubris, you

don't get this sort of thing on the other programme.

The debate over Scotland's future has been dominated by Alex Salmond.

His job, if he is to win our referendum on independence, is to

become Mr Scotland in the public mind, a 21st century William

Wallace. Of course, William Wallace himself was home, drawn and

quartered at a show trial at Westminster. Yesterday, their

Lordships seemed bent on its Of course, he is cunning, a ball,

he is a gambler. But he is not infallible. I know that already you

will have seen that he is unable to answer some of the really searching

questions about the reality of independence. One other aspect of

the consultation paper is that he wants to rig the franchise and give

the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. My researchers tell me that there are

only nine countries in the world that give the franchise to 16 and

17-year-olds. Two of which are North Korea and Cuba, both of whom

also half metres with a high opinion of themselves. -- have

leaders with a high opinion of themselves. We are dealing with an

extremely clever, extremely devious, extremely easy going, so it appears,

until things are at a difficult stage and then he will put the sue

him. Can I rephrase that Andy positive and say that he is

successfully manipulative. That is a compliment, but he is. I have

said repeatedly that members of Her Majesty's government, at their

peril, underestimate him. He is not known as smart-alec for nothing.

cannot sit here and here my good friend Alex Salmond been bad-

mouthed, in the way that he has already been in this debate. It is

for the noble Lords to decide for themselves whether the noises made

in this chamber and heard in Scotland will help or hinder the

Joining me now from Dundee is Stewart Hosie of the Scottish

nationalists. If Alex Salmond was to fall under a bus, would the

steam go out of the independence movement? No. This cause has been

around for a long time. The leader of the SNP is doing a fantastic job.

But the scheme would not go out. Your party is a bit of a one-man

band, isn't it? It clearly isn't. Indeed, my recollection, when David

Cameron blundered into the debate a few weeks ago, we put any number of

politicians before cameras, including your own. Alex Salmond

did not have to say anything for some days. There were enough able

and competent politicians to take on the nonsense coming out of

Westminster. Would you not agree that the sensible way to proceed,

whatever the exact nature of the question, is to solve what is an

extra central issue, if Scotland remains part of the union or not.

If it votes not to be part, that remains for the terms of severance

to be negotiated. If it votes to stay a part, you can go back to

what the nature of that union should be. Would that not be a

mature wake to proceed? It would be our way of proceeding, but better

if we are having a referendum to decide Scotland's constitutional

future, to ask the question which has been framed. To ask, at the

same time, for those that want to go part of the journey with us, do

you want more powers only? It is a perfectly mature and sensible

approach. But your party policy is to ask only one question. That is

right. Why are you arguing for two? We recognise a body of opinion that

wants to go further than we are at the moment, but not to independence.

It is right to test that democratically. This is sheer

opportunity. You are afraid that he would lose a Yes-no. So you want to

put in so that you get 70% of the cake instead of not at all? I am

absolutely confident that we will win the ADS case. -- the yes case.

It is a democratic principle, that Test bat against public opinion as

well. The huge issue is if you will break up the United Kingdom,

Scotland becomes a separate state with its own seat in the UN,

although not in NATO. Let's resolve that one way or another. If the

answer is no, we still want to remain part of the United Kingdom,

then you can build on existing devolution. It sounds, to me,

entirely logical and reasonable. The independence question will be

settled. There will be an independence question. You're

asking why we are doing two, let me ask the question a different way.

The Liberals claim to believe in federalism in 1914. Why are they

afraid to give federalism to the people in 2014? Let's test these

opinions against public opinion and see who wins. I am confident that

public opinion will win, but the people will decide, not the House

of Lords. If you had somebody in there yesterday, you could have

stopped your man getting a kicking. Daniel Finklestein, you have your

ear at the Westminster regime, it is it a red line for Westminster

that there should only be one question on the ballot paper?

doubt it will turn out to be a red line. They wanted to be a red line,

but I am not sure that it will be. You don't actually need to be,

because I don't know what devo-max is. What are they asking the

question about, what proposal of a putting forward that people will

have a chance to vote for? Until that is much clearer and the

consequences for English voters are clearer, I think it would be wrong

to say that it is definitely a red line. They want to avoid Alex

Salmond having to do that. I think they are not going to have as much

trouble as they think, he hasn't been able to explain it in a way

that means it doesn't have vast consequences for England. A final

question, if the Scots did vote for you to go and negotiate the terms

of independence and then you did, the Scot said, well, we do not like

these terms, they are not very good. We should probably stick with the

UK. You would not have a second referendum, would you?

referendum would be very clear air, if you want Scotland to be an

independent country. If people vote for that, Scotland will be an

independent country. That is democracy and I am happy to stick

to the will of the Scottish people. We have to stick to our time. It is

good to see the Dundee road bridge behind you. I liked the rail bridge

as well. It is so old that there is Time to look back at the big

stories of the last seven days. Here is the week in 60 seconds.

Crash, bank, wallop. Growth figures came in at -0.2 %, building fears

of a recession. Tue, it is your fault! No, it is your fault!

policies are failing the country. The party opposite has only one

answer, to deal with a debt crisis by borrowing more and adding to

death! The cat might fit, but the Lords refused to wear it.

Government plans to limit welfare payments at �26,000 displeased

peers, who voted to have child benefit excluded. Ministers say

they will be back. Nick Clegg is speeding up plans to increase the

tax threshold. I want the coalition to go further and faster in

delivering the full �10,000. the Prime Minister got very little

satisfaction as Mick Jagger pulled out of an event in Davos. He had no

sympathy for the PR devil's he said were using him as a political

football. It might be rock and roll, but he didn't like it and he was

out quicker than jumping Jack Flash. Still, it is all over now.

Are things going to get better for Ed Miliband? I am not sure about

that. I couldn't care less what the Labour Party does until it stops

supporting welfare reform in the Commons and comes up with an

alternative to cuts. With what we have just seen, welfare cuts, 0.2%

shrinkage, I think Scotland is looking nice at this time of year.

I will be watching that devolution result. The thing is, poor people

and people on low incomes overwhelm any support welfare reform. They do,

a so the Labour Party would not be representative of the people that