:00:35. > :00:37.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:38. > :00:40.With just three days left until Referendum Day, Scots are warned
:00:41. > :00:53.We'll bring you the latest on the campaigns.
:00:54. > :00:55.After the brutal murder of David Haines - and threats
:00:56. > :00:58.on the life of another British Hostage - how should Britain and its
:00:59. > :01:02.Want to kick your errant MP out of the commons?
:01:03. > :01:05.The government's introducing a new law it says will make that easier.
:01:06. > :01:08.But one Conservative MP says voters are being conned.
:01:09. > :01:11.And are promises of more powers for Scotland, if it stays part of the
:01:12. > :01:24.All that in the next hour but let's start this morning with Scotland.
:01:25. > :01:26.The independence referendum is on Thursday
:01:27. > :01:32.A year ago the No campaign had a comfortable lead
:01:33. > :01:36.but that has now all but disappeared with the latest poll of polls
:01:37. > :01:43.Let's talk now to two commentators who've been paying close attention
:01:44. > :01:45.to this campaign, journalist and broadcaster, Lesley
:01:46. > :01:58.Riddoch, and Alex Massie who writes for the Spectator among others.
:01:59. > :02:05.Looking at the way the polls have developed in the last ten days, can
:02:06. > :02:09.they be trusted at this point to give any clear indication about who
:02:10. > :02:13.will win on Thursday? They can to the degree that it is very close,
:02:14. > :02:18.and I would not be one that said the polls have been wrong in the last
:02:19. > :02:23.few months. I think the mistake has been to assume that people who have
:02:24. > :02:27.said they were no work immutably know. I've heard it referred to as a
:02:28. > :02:32.deferred yes, and that might sound like nonsense, but it is proven to
:02:33. > :02:36.be the case. One survey done by academics at Edinburgh University
:02:37. > :02:41.found that the more no vote has been engaged, the more they have moved
:02:42. > :02:45.towards yes. So the people who at the beginning might been distant are
:02:46. > :02:49.hearing certain stories coming from every outlet, because Bear in mind
:02:50. > :02:53.only one newspaper supports independence, and those people when
:02:54. > :02:57.they heard another side of the story and were able to engage, they have
:02:58. > :03:02.felt calmer about the arguments and have moved their vote. We have a
:03:03. > :03:08.situation now where both sides are claiming victory. Is that being done
:03:09. > :03:15.just for public appetite, or it -- is it what they believe? Both sides
:03:16. > :03:19.do believe it. Whether they basing it on something credible rather than
:03:20. > :03:22.a hunch is a different matter. The no campaign is a bit more
:03:23. > :03:27.confident. The Yes campaign do believe that victory is possible. It
:03:28. > :03:31.is one of those people that might be shocking for people, but it wouldn't
:03:32. > :03:35.be no longer considered surprising. It is reasonable to say that even at
:03:36. > :03:39.this late stage, more things need to go right for the Yes campaign to
:03:40. > :03:44.prevail and they need to get lucky, if you like and hit the cards three
:03:45. > :03:48.times in a row. Whereas the no campaign still has a bit more margin
:03:49. > :03:52.for error, for things going wrong, but at the same time, that is a
:03:53. > :03:56.little margin for error, because everybody assumes that on the day
:03:57. > :04:05.the Yes campaign will have a more efficient vote out operation. Isn't
:04:06. > :04:10.it true, that whatever I anyone says, to anyone, however loud, it
:04:11. > :04:13.will make less difference than both sides getting their people to the
:04:14. > :04:19.polling booths to put the cross in the right box for them. The ground
:04:20. > :04:24.war is now absolutely critical. That is true, but I know the narratives
:04:25. > :04:29.of things being loud, and that is inevitable when you come to this
:04:30. > :04:36.kind of conflict, and it's not a conflict, this is democracy. What is
:04:37. > :04:39.likely to persuade people are softer words, and our conversations with
:04:40. > :04:43.families or friends. There are a lot of people, and I know it sounds
:04:44. > :04:46.extraordinary given we have had two years of debate, there are some
:04:47. > :04:50.people who think they will vote no one day and yes the next. Taking
:04:51. > :04:56.your point though, even things like the weather, it is a grey day today
:04:57. > :05:03.and we understand the weather will pick up by Thursday, and as Alex
:05:04. > :05:06.said, the yes organisation has traditionally been with the backing
:05:07. > :05:12.of the SNP a slick operation are getting local organisations going,
:05:13. > :05:16.and the local aspect of the Yes campaign is anyone might agree is
:05:17. > :05:22.where it has scored hugely until now. Taking that point on, it is
:05:23. > :05:27.about the ground war, but what about persuading those people who have
:05:28. > :05:31.either changed their minds or are soft on voting one way or another,
:05:32. > :05:34.conversations in families, or people coming to the door. It is impossible
:05:35. > :05:39.to measure how those people will vote until they are standing in the
:05:40. > :05:44.booth. Of course, that is the case. I think a lot of people are
:05:45. > :05:49.surprised that this is going to be as close as it is, and they
:05:50. > :05:54.shouldn't be surprised. The baseline constituency for independence was
:05:55. > :05:57.all raise around 35%, and there was always another 10% of people who
:05:58. > :06:06.could easily be converted to voting yes. This means that the battle has
:06:07. > :06:11.really been over the final 10%. Now how they will vote, nobody knows.
:06:12. > :06:15.Partly because the most significant group of voters are not so much
:06:16. > :06:20.undecided or Labour voters as the half of the population who did not
:06:21. > :06:25.vote in the last Holyrood election, who do not usually vote in
:06:26. > :06:29.elections. The assumptions are that these people are from poorer areas
:06:30. > :06:33.and somehow more likely to vote yes. I think that is a slightly
:06:34. > :06:39.simplistic reading because many are from middle-class areas and just as
:06:40. > :06:43.likely to vote no. Again, that simplifies things, but the thing is,
:06:44. > :06:48.nobody really knows anything. Let's look to the day after, Leslie, God
:06:49. > :06:52.forbid, you will have a divided country. Scotland will be divided
:06:53. > :06:56.because they are divided on this question and because of the way the
:06:57. > :07:02.vote is being taken and cast. Are you worried that half the folk in
:07:03. > :07:08.the country could be resentful and unhappy whatever the result? Having
:07:09. > :07:13.had a situation where Scotland as a function of its population has got
:07:14. > :07:17.pretty good experience of not getting the results it once, and
:07:18. > :07:22.that has fuelled the independence campaign, we kind of about used to
:07:23. > :07:26.it. I do take the point that there will be a huge disappointment,
:07:27. > :07:29.because some people have put their lives on hold, seen their earnings
:07:30. > :07:32.collapse, but on the other hand they have seen fabulous new friendships
:07:33. > :07:39.and had a tremendous sense of solidarity. And that suddenly goes
:07:40. > :07:43.on the 19th as well. And there is a withdrawal of business as usual for
:07:44. > :07:46.a number of people, never mind the slightly overwrought emphasis on
:07:47. > :07:50.division. I grew up in Northern Ireland and that is an area that has
:07:51. > :07:55.managed to achieve huge amounts of reconciliation. Scotland, by
:07:56. > :07:58.contrast, has had the most civilised debate to determine something on a
:07:59. > :08:03.constitutional level anywhere in Europe, and that is the real story.
:08:04. > :08:08.We have to end it there, but thank you to both of you.
:08:09. > :08:10.John Reid is a former Labour Cabinet Minister.
:08:11. > :08:13.He was Secretary of State for Scotland in 1999 when the Scottish
:08:14. > :08:17.Parliament was re-established and he joins us now from Glasgow.
:08:18. > :08:22.Welcome along. We heard yesterday, and you might have done as well,
:08:23. > :08:25.from George Galloway who said that Labour was on its deathbed in
:08:26. > :08:30.Scotland, it is finished because of the way the lead by the Better
:08:31. > :08:34.Together campaign has collapsed during the campaigning, and because
:08:35. > :08:46.of the number of Labour voters now intending to vote yes. Is that a
:08:47. > :08:51.question? Yes, is he right? On issues like this, no party or party
:08:52. > :08:55.leader will dictate to the Scottish people. There will be movements
:08:56. > :08:59.across, and some Labour voters who will vote for separation, and about
:09:00. > :09:03.20% of SNP supporters who are against separation. This is an
:09:04. > :09:07.exercise in democracy. The only thing we know until the people
:09:08. > :09:24.actually vote is that it is very close. And
:09:25. > :09:26.people are concentrating their minds on the long-term effects,
:09:27. > :09:31.particularly on the positive benefits of being part of a bigger
:09:32. > :09:36.state, and the dangers of separating pensions, paid, jobs and so on. Is
:09:37. > :09:40.it so close because labour is failing in Scotland? You have heard
:09:41. > :09:46.about accusations of complacency, but at the end of last week, the
:09:47. > :09:50.latest Guardian poll suggested that 42% of Scots who voted Labour in the
:09:51. > :09:56.2010 election were minded to vote yes. Surely proof of Labour's
:09:57. > :09:58.decline of influence in Scotland. I've just answered your question.
:09:59. > :10:05.You won't get a different answer because you've raised the question
:10:06. > :10:11.differently. It is more evidence. It is not. It is unbalanced. The
:10:12. > :10:14.balanced evidence shows that 20% of SNP supporters, and their central
:10:15. > :10:21.premise of being that supporter is separated, 20% of them is voting to
:10:22. > :10:24.remain in the UK -- is separation. I understand why people on the
:10:25. > :10:28.television get really involved about the process, but actually, rather
:10:29. > :10:32.than listen to the polls, I would rather listen to the arguments, and
:10:33. > :10:37.the essential thing in the next few days is whether or not we take a
:10:38. > :10:41.country which has a rich and proud history and culture and control of
:10:42. > :10:47.its affairs, and will have more, and give it the stability it has had for
:10:48. > :10:51.three centuries of a wider economic unit, like the United Kingdom, or
:10:52. > :10:56.whether it goes its separate way with all the undoubted risks that
:10:57. > :11:00.have been illustrated in the past week on questions of paid, prices
:11:01. > :11:05.and investment and pensions. That is what is going to concentrate the
:11:06. > :11:10.mind, with great respect. You say that, but it was the Westminster
:11:11. > :11:14.parties who reacted to one particular poll that put the Yes
:11:15. > :11:18.campaign ahead, if you are accusing the media of reacting to polls. They
:11:19. > :11:20.cancelled Prime Minister's Questions and went up the Scotland because
:11:21. > :11:26.they were so worried about the collapse of the lead by the Better
:11:27. > :11:29.Together campaign which has been led by a senior Labour figure, Alistair
:11:30. > :11:39.Darling, and people will be asking why it is. I have been arguing and
:11:40. > :11:44.debating this as a mess -- member of what you call the Westminster
:11:45. > :11:50.parties, which plays into the Alex Salmond dogma, and he is dog
:11:51. > :11:54.whistling the sentiment of the English parties. I have been
:11:55. > :12:00.debating this issue on the streets for 30 years, not the last few days.
:12:01. > :12:05.And the essential question remains the same, which isn't about this or
:12:06. > :12:10.that aspect of the campaign, it is about the integral arguments. Do you
:12:11. > :12:14.want to have the richness of Scottish heritage and culture within
:12:15. > :12:18.the stability of aid bigger economic unit like the UK, or do you want all
:12:19. > :12:24.the dangers of separation. That is what people are arguing about.
:12:25. > :12:29.Arscott generally worried about what will happen in the general election
:12:30. > :12:35.next year -- our Scottish people? Tommy Sheridan articulated what many
:12:36. > :12:39.Scottish people felt about Westminster leaders, when they are
:12:40. > :12:45.three millionaires united in one thing, that is austerity. It won't
:12:46. > :12:48.matter to Scottish people if Ed Miliband wins the next election
:12:49. > :12:52.because he signed up to Tory spending cuts. They are not getting
:12:53. > :12:58.what they voted for, so they are looking favourably on independence.
:12:59. > :13:03.Do you understand that? You are quoting Tommy Sheridan, a great
:13:04. > :13:05.character, a great celebrity and a leader of various revolutionary
:13:06. > :13:10.socialist parties that have no support whatsoever in Scotland. But
:13:11. > :13:13.does his sentiment ring true, that actually Scottish people think they
:13:14. > :13:17.don't get the government they are voting for and they want a social
:13:18. > :13:20.democracy, and they want what they say is a fairer society and they
:13:21. > :13:23.don't think it can be delivered by the Labour Party? There is no doubt
:13:24. > :13:28.the frustration of voting Labour and not getting a Labour government is
:13:29. > :13:35.felt by many people. Incidentally, many people in Manchester, in
:13:36. > :13:39.Liverpool, in Newcastle, as well as in Scotland, that is called
:13:40. > :13:43.democracy. It's also true that over the past 20 years for instance, we
:13:44. > :13:47.have had a majority Labour government and next year we will
:13:48. > :13:51.have another Labour government, so sometimes you win, sometimes you
:13:52. > :13:56.lose, but balanced against the frustration is the fact that we have
:13:57. > :14:00.had enormous assistance in financial stability, economic strength,
:14:01. > :14:04.individual opportunity and social justice because of being part of the
:14:05. > :14:07.partnership of the United Kingdom. The National Health Service, the
:14:08. > :14:11.welfare state, competence of education, race relations, the
:14:12. > :14:15.minimum wage, the minimum pension, these are the products of not only
:14:16. > :14:18.Scottish values but British governments. And in the main,
:14:19. > :14:22.British Labour governments and people in Scotland know that. Let's
:14:23. > :14:26.think a bit more about devolution. You said yesterday that you support
:14:27. > :14:30.devolution for the rest of the UK in the event of a no vote in Scotland.
:14:31. > :14:35.How far do you want to take that devolution? I'd personally, having
:14:36. > :14:39.fought all of my life for devolution to the Scottish Parliament, I want
:14:40. > :14:43.to see it extended or offered to the people of England on a regional
:14:44. > :14:47.basis. When we went to the first referendum, people in the north-east
:14:48. > :14:53.said no, so that didn't work. However, there is a possibility, I
:14:54. > :14:57.believe, of recognition that the centralising more powers to city
:14:58. > :15:03.regions, local enterprise companies, and so on, is the way that we should
:15:04. > :15:06.go in the UK. Not an English parliament? It is an overcentralised
:15:07. > :15:12.state, and the more you can devolve things, the better. An English
:15:13. > :15:15.parliament is part of the argument, but decentralisation is not just
:15:16. > :15:20.about parliaments, it's about passing power to localities within
:15:21. > :15:23.the UK, to the nations of the UK, but also downwards to the likes of
:15:24. > :15:31.cities and regions like London. What would that mean for a future
:15:32. > :15:37.Labour government. In Ed Balls is reported to have said that if we
:15:38. > :15:41.give the whole tax raising power to the Scottish Parliament, how can
:15:42. > :15:45.Scottish Labour MPs vote for a Labour budget in England? First,
:15:46. > :15:47.let's take the question of passing it to the Scottish Parliament. That
:15:48. > :15:51.doesn't just give the Scottish Parliament more power, it gives it
:15:52. > :15:56.more responsibility. Because the more you are obliged to raise the
:15:57. > :16:01.money you are spending, the more responsible and accountable to the
:16:02. > :16:08.Scottish people you will be. That is not just an argument of more powers.
:16:09. > :16:13.In terms of devolution throughout the UK, that discussion will take
:16:14. > :16:16.place. Why? Because there is a distinction between the Scottish
:16:17. > :16:21.referendum, which is whether you want to be a member of the club or
:16:22. > :16:25.not. That is a matter for the Scottish people. Having decided you
:16:26. > :16:30.want to be a member of the club, we then discuss the rules of the club
:16:31. > :16:32.and that is a matter for not just the Scottish people, but the Welsh
:16:33. > :16:40.and the Northern Irish and the English. That would be dangerous for
:16:41. > :16:44.Labour, because if Scotland votes no, given greater autonomy, Scottish
:16:45. > :16:48.MPs continuing to vote on English education and health and welfare,
:16:49. > :16:52.they get more power over tax and spending, how can they be allowed to
:16:53. > :16:58.vote on a budget that would not have anything to do with them? If we are
:16:59. > :17:03.talking about exclusively English matters, then of course there will
:17:04. > :17:07.be a discussion about how those discussions are reached if we
:17:08. > :17:12.devolve tax raising power to the Scottish Parliament. I don't think
:17:13. > :17:17.these issues are dangerous. When you have a government at the moment, you
:17:18. > :17:21.have a Conservative government in the UK. You don't have such a
:17:22. > :17:24.government in Scotland. You have an SNP government. You don't have such
:17:25. > :17:30.a government in Northern Ireland. You may not have such a government
:17:31. > :17:34.in Wales. That is not dangerous. That is democratic. The more you
:17:35. > :17:38.decentralise the state, the better it is in a modern world in my view.
:17:39. > :17:42.Thank you very much. "They are not Muslims,
:17:43. > :17:44.they are monsters". Those were the words of
:17:45. > :17:48.David Cameron yesterday as he responded to the beheading
:17:49. > :17:51.of British aid worker David Haines The chilling video, which emerged
:17:52. > :17:54.over the weekend, included a threat on the life of another
:17:55. > :17:57.British aid worker, Alan Henning, who's from Salford and was captured
:17:58. > :18:00.in Syria in December last year. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond
:18:01. > :18:02.will meet ministers from other countries at
:18:03. > :18:17.a special conference in Paris today So far Britain has stopped short of
:18:18. > :18:20.committing planes as part of US air strikes against Islamic State which
:18:21. > :18:25.were announced by Barack Obama last week in response to the murder of
:18:26. > :18:33.two American citizens. David Cameron has to form two coalitions. First he
:18:34. > :18:36.has to build a democraters tick coalition -- domestic coalition in
:18:37. > :18:40.Westminster. However, the Prime Minister will tread carefully after
:18:41. > :18:45.losing last year's vote over action on Syria and he has hinted any air
:18:46. > :18:48.strikes would have to have majority support from Parliament. Although a
:18:49. > :18:51.recall of MPs seems unlikely this week. On the international stage,
:18:52. > :18:57.there is the question of whether to bomb IS in Iraq and Syria or just
:18:58. > :19:02.Iraq. In Paris the Foreign Secretary will try to build support for a
:19:03. > :19:14.US-led coalition, including Australia and some Arab states. We
:19:15. > :19:21.are joined by a panel of MPs. Mark Field, Labour's Owen Smith, and
:19:22. > :19:26.Liberal Democrat Tom Brake. Mark Field, do you support the idea of UK
:19:27. > :19:32.air strikes in Iraq and Syria or just Iraq? I think the right
:19:33. > :19:37.approach and David Cameron's approach has been to build up a
:19:38. > :19:39.patient coalition of interthat will thought. That is the --
:19:40. > :19:44.international thought. That is the UN and the EU and NATO. I think
:19:45. > :19:50.there is a distinction between what happens in Iraq and Syria, given the
:19:51. > :19:55.vote we had last year in the House of Commons and any action in Syria
:19:56. > :20:02.would require the approval of Parliament. Do you think you would
:20:03. > :20:07.get that? We probably would, I think compared to last year when there was
:20:08. > :20:11.a head long rush without thinking through the implications, thinking
:20:12. > :20:17.we will recall Parliament and they will fall into line. You have to
:20:18. > :20:22.praise David Cameron's patience and Barack Obama. The truth is we know
:20:23. > :20:28.this issue in relation to Isil or Islamic State will not be a matter
:20:29. > :20:33.for the next few weeks or months. It will take many years. There is a
:20:34. > :20:38.distinction between what is happening in Iraq and Syria. Not
:20:39. > :20:47.least because of the complication that Isil is part of group against
:20:48. > :20:52.president ass sat. -- Assad. That sounds like you're not supporting
:20:53. > :20:57.it. I'm still to be persuaded. In Iraq, yes. We heard Mark Field say
:20:58. > :21:01.David Cameron has been patient. Some may say slow to react. Bearing in
:21:02. > :21:08.mind we have had the beheading of a British he is Taj and a second man
:21:09. > :21:13.-- hostage and a second man is being held. Do you think that prince is
:21:14. > :21:17.progressing -- that Britain is processing too slowly? No, I don't
:21:18. > :21:20.often have words of praise for the Prime Minister, but I think he has
:21:21. > :21:25.been right. The world has been right. The west has been right to
:21:26. > :21:32.wait and try to build a broad coalition of countries and in lots
:21:33. > :21:35.of respects it shows we are learning lessons of past. Labour helped to
:21:36. > :21:39.learn the lessons. Or held back David Cameron, because of the worry
:21:40. > :21:46.that Labour wouldn't support them? No, I think President Obama has led
:21:47. > :21:50.this and he has articulated the need for building a broad coalition. The
:21:51. > :21:59.west can't act in isolation in the Middle East. When we have done that
:22:00. > :22:04.there have been malign consequences. The death of this man and these
:22:05. > :22:10.other people is barbaric and awful. We are all shocked. But the worst
:22:11. > :22:16.thing we could do for everybody involved would be to jump to action
:22:17. > :22:20.without having a clear, clarity about what we are trying to achieve
:22:21. > :22:24.and the long-term consequences. We have been told a number of Arab
:22:25. > :22:29.states are willing to join a coalition and the process is under
:22:30. > :22:35.way. The Foreign Secretary is meeting with counter parts. If all
:22:36. > :22:45.of that is got through positively, will you sign up to air strikes
:22:46. > :22:50.against Iraq? Against IS? We would need to know what the premise was
:22:51. > :22:55.and the nature of the coalition that had been brought together and to be
:22:56. > :22:59.clear on the objectives. Hypothetically yes if all those
:23:00. > :23:02.things were clear and there were agreement in Labour and in
:23:03. > :23:09.Westminster. That is a possibility. Does that fill you with confidence?
:23:10. > :23:12.It should do. That there would be a consensus if let's say Parliament at
:23:13. > :23:16.the end of the Labour Party conference is called to debate this
:23:17. > :23:21.with the issue of air strikes on the table? What the difference of course
:23:22. > :23:25.is that if there was an agreement that went beyond just the UK and the
:23:26. > :23:31.US and involving Arab state, that would give people the confidence
:23:32. > :23:34.that they needed to see this not as being a western intervention. But
:23:35. > :23:38.being an intervention that had wide support. That is essential for
:23:39. > :23:44.securing the support in Parliament. Where is your party on this? I think
:23:45. > :23:50.my view and my party's view is that I think if that agreement was there,
:23:51. > :23:53.not just the US and the UK and if Parliament was behind it, I think
:23:54. > :24:01.the Liberal Democrats would be behind action. So the point about
:24:02. > :24:04.Syria, is it in your mind legal if the discussion is broadened to
:24:05. > :24:12.include air strikes against Syria. Would it be legal for the UK to bomb
:24:13. > :24:19.IS there? I would need to see the detail and what UN support there
:24:20. > :24:24.was. You would want a UN resolution? Without that it is problematic. But
:24:25. > :24:28.we need to take action that crosses borders, otherwise they will cross
:24:29. > :24:33.from one border to the other. Would you want a UN resolution before any
:24:34. > :24:40.agreement by the British Government to bomb in Syria? It would always be
:24:41. > :24:44.to the UK Government's advantage to secure that. But would it be
:24:45. > :24:50.necessary, you would argue humanitarian reasons, just like the
:24:51. > :24:56.British government did in Kosovo and you would say Assad was not a
:24:57. > :24:59.legitimate government. It wouldn't strictly be necessary. People look
:25:00. > :25:06.at the terrible death of David Haynes and I suspect, although I
:25:07. > :25:15.don't know it, how many hostages we have, I fear there are other British
:25:16. > :25:19.citizens who have been taken hostage on the Turkish border. The truth is
:25:20. > :25:28.that if you take the Daily Express type view that we should regain the
:25:29. > :25:33.Lord Palmerston days of gun boat dim Lome si. Those -- diplomacy. Those
:25:34. > :25:39.days are long gone. Rescue attempts are not possible. We have tried
:25:40. > :25:44.that. Of course communication and negotiations go on when we have
:25:45. > :25:48.citizens at bay there. But the truth we know this is going to be a long
:25:49. > :25:51.haul. And we need to build up that coalition throughout the
:25:52. > :25:55.international community and the best of that through the UN ideally and
:25:56. > :26:00.certainly through NATO. What about boots on the ground. That is not
:26:01. > :26:06.being discussed. Is that what some of you would like to think is
:26:07. > :26:11.necessary to defeat Isis. Yes, at some point there will be, whether it
:26:12. > :26:17.is Special Forces or humanitarian people, as part of a UN force, but
:26:18. > :26:22.it may be that to defeat them, it will require boots on the ground.
:26:23. > :26:27.But that is a long way ahead. This is about defeating them. It is a
:26:28. > :26:32.balance between bringing even on board, but the public, many of them,
:26:33. > :26:37.if not a swrort in favour of air strikes, want to see Isis defeated.
:26:38. > :26:43.Yes the public view is changing. I think a couple of years ago there
:26:44. > :26:48.was clearly a diminishing app site for British -- appetite for British
:26:49. > :26:51.military engaging. I think that is changing, because of Isis. And the
:26:52. > :26:57.security threat? And the pure evil of the nature of the individuals we
:26:58. > :27:04.are dealing with. I'm not a pacifist. Britain has a role to play
:27:05. > :27:09.and that does require on occasions hard power. The principal lesson to
:27:10. > :27:15.learn from Iraq is if you don't know how it is going to turn out, or you
:27:16. > :27:22.don't have a good idea, don't start it. Should Parliament be recalled?
:27:23. > :27:24.If there is a proposal for major military engagement, that would have
:27:25. > :27:29.to happen. I think we are not at that stage. We should be supporting
:27:30. > :27:32.people like the Kurds and the Iraqi Government to take the military
:27:33. > :27:35.action. That is the starting point. You don't think there has been a
:27:36. > :27:40.delay, because of Scottish referendum? No, there v this has
:27:41. > :27:45.been a painstaking sense of trying to build that coalition. And the
:27:46. > :27:51.truth is that the public recognise and dare I say it the dreadful
:27:52. > :27:55.watching these murderers, they're British citizens and could return
:27:56. > :28:00.and be a danger to us all. Thank you.
:28:01. > :28:05.Well the Government's introduced a bill to Parliament it says will
:28:06. > :28:08.The Recall Bill was unveiled by the Deputy Prime Minister,
:28:09. > :28:11.But the Conservative MP, Zac Goldsmith - who's been campaigning
:28:12. > :28:15.for the right to fire your MP - has called the Bill a Con.
:28:16. > :28:29.Why is the bill a Corne? It is the same as the bill he introduced some
:28:30. > :28:32.years ago. It is a con, because it is an attempt to convey an
:28:33. > :28:40.impression that they will have powers to hold their MPs to account
:28:41. > :28:44.between elections. But they won't. According to criteria in the bill,
:28:45. > :28:48.just six MPs would have been affected. So I think if anyone is
:28:49. > :28:52.left with the impression that after this Bill goes through they will
:28:53. > :28:58.have the power to hold their MP to account, they're mistaken. Except
:28:59. > :29:02.even if it didn't allow the sort of powers that you suggested, the Bill
:29:03. > :29:10.would have resulted in the removal of MPs such as Patrick Mercer. It is
:29:11. > :29:15.not as toothless as you suggest if MPs breach the code of conduct they
:29:16. > :29:20.would come before the authorities. It is not a complete con? I think it
:29:21. > :29:23.is a dangerous thing that the Government is doing. In particular
:29:24. > :29:26.the Deputy Prime Minister, it is dangerous, because I think people
:29:27. > :29:30.will imagine, just as they were promised before the election that we
:29:31. > :29:33.would have recall power, I think they will imagine that they will
:29:34. > :29:37.have the power to hold their MP to account. But it is almost impossible
:29:38. > :29:46.to imagine an MP being recalled on the back of Nick Clegg bill. One
:29:47. > :29:51.reason is in the Nick Clegg bill, unless every where elsewhere it
:29:52. > :29:55.happens, Parliament needs to make the decision. Instead of handing the
:29:56. > :29:59.power to voters, it hands it up to the House of Commons and that is the
:30:00. > :30:06.opposite of what recall should be. The criteria are so narrow and
:30:07. > :30:11.focussing on financial irregularity, if your MP didn't turn up at
:30:12. > :30:21.Parliament for five years, they would be untouchable. Let me put
:30:22. > :30:25.that to you, Tom, if an MP does those things listed, you can't do
:30:26. > :30:31.anything about it? I'm afraid some of what Zac Goldsmith has said is
:30:32. > :30:36.incorrect. There are two main changes. The first changes that any
:30:37. > :30:40.MP who receives a prison sentence of 12 months or less automatically a
:30:41. > :30:46.recall position is triggered. That is at the extreme end. Serious
:30:47. > :30:52.wrongdoing, according to the code of conduct for MPs, and equally if the
:30:53. > :30:56.commission of standards agrees they have committed serious wrongdoing,
:30:57. > :30:59.then the recall petition comes out. But Zac Goldsmith is saying that you
:31:00. > :31:04.are an MP who goes abroad every year and never speaks to constituents,
:31:05. > :31:07.can't do anything. We have a fundamental principle at stake here,
:31:08. > :31:11.and that that is people elect their member of Parliament to represent
:31:12. > :31:15.them. They elect them to take decision on their behalf. Sometimes
:31:16. > :31:20.they might not like those decisions but would what Zac is proposing, a
:31:21. > :31:26.petition could be triggered every time a member of Parliament takes a
:31:27. > :31:29.decision that a constituent does not support. What is the point of
:31:30. > :31:34.electing them to serve a five-year term? That is always the fear, that
:31:35. > :31:39.it will be vindictive. I know you say that there are triggers and a
:31:40. > :31:46.high bar before recall could happen. Is it 5%? Just quickly on
:31:47. > :31:50.those comments, what he said is not true. I have read the bill and I'm
:31:51. > :31:53.surprised he hasn't. It's not just about being sanctioned by Parliament
:31:54. > :31:59.or the committee on standards, you have to be expelled from the house
:32:00. > :32:03.for a minimum of 21 days and it never happens. It's a serious
:32:04. > :32:09.thing. To qualify the recall, it is either a custodial crime, or being
:32:10. > :32:13.thrown out of the house for a minimum of 21 days. It is very, very
:32:14. > :32:18.unlikely to capture anyone. I don't even think the jail criteria should
:32:19. > :32:25.be set by Parliament. It is possible to imagine MPs going to jail for
:32:26. > :32:29.noble reason. Terry Field went to jail for refusing to pay the poll
:32:30. > :32:32.tax. He was adored by his constituents. It shouldn't be down
:32:33. > :32:36.to Parliament. That is an interesting point. First of all,
:32:37. > :32:40.have you read the bill? As one of the ministers responsible, yes I
:32:41. > :32:43.have. Just checking because Goldsmith thinks I haven't, or
:32:44. > :32:50.you've misinterpreted. You have read it. What do you say to that point?
:32:51. > :32:55.It is an interesting one. If a prison sentence is the bar that is
:32:56. > :32:58.used, it could be unjustified. What Zac has highlighted is exactly one
:32:59. > :33:04.of the things we have built into the bill. If you had a scenario where a
:33:05. > :33:09.member of Parliament, such as the poll tax riots, and an MP was
:33:10. > :33:14.sentenced to eight prison templated -- prison sentence, there would be a
:33:15. > :33:17.rebate, but that MP's constituents could choose whether they thought
:33:18. > :33:21.that was something that required their MP to be thrown out or,
:33:22. > :33:25.alternatively, if they had some sympathy with the decision taken.
:33:26. > :33:29.How many of your colleagues are supporting new or agree with you? I
:33:30. > :33:34.put together an alternative recall bill with 22 MPs on a panel from
:33:35. > :33:37.seven different parties and we could have had 100, but when you get
:33:38. > :33:41.beyond 20 it's an unworkable committee. There is a huge support
:33:42. > :33:45.in parliament for the real deal recall bill that gives power to the
:33:46. > :33:50.institution to decide who gets to comment is not the kind of recall
:33:51. > :33:55.that people want. It's not what people outside of Parliament one.
:33:56. > :33:57.This is a recall Bill, and it will be put before you and your
:33:58. > :34:02.colleagues. Will you try to amend it? I think it needs a profound
:34:03. > :34:06.amendment. I hope the Conservative Party will apply a light whip and
:34:07. > :34:08.allow Parliament to do the job and until that is the case, I heard the
:34:09. > :34:14.Liberal Democrats will trust their own members to do the job of
:34:15. > :34:17.improving legislation, and likewise the Labour Party. It remains to be
:34:18. > :34:21.seen of Parliament is properly allowed to scrutinise the bill. If
:34:22. > :34:27.it is pushed through on a whip, we will get what we want. Is that true?
:34:28. > :34:33.Is the Chief Whip, Michael Gove, going to step back from this and
:34:34. > :34:40.actually say, you go ahead, you vote against this Liberal Democrat bill.
:34:41. > :34:44.Obviously it's a government bill but brought forward by the Deputy Prime
:34:45. > :34:47.Minister, and you can support Zac Goldsmith's amendments. It is
:34:48. > :34:49.Minister, and you can support Zac coalition bill. I have some sympathy
:34:50. > :34:52.with what Zac Goldsmith is saying because it seems to
:34:53. > :34:52.with what Zac Goldsmith is saying promise made when the coalition was
:34:53. > :34:55.formed promise made when the coalition was
:34:56. > :35:00.has been massively watered down. If we end up with a bill like this we
:35:01. > :35:05.might as well have no bill at all. So you would vote against it? I will
:35:06. > :35:10.listen to the debate and look at some of the amendments put through.
:35:11. > :35:15.The concern I have, at one level, you do not want to have vexatious
:35:16. > :35:18.individuals who through Internet petitions make life incredibly
:35:19. > :35:24.difficult on minor points. I can see what Tom says about that to that
:35:25. > :35:28.extent. But where Zac is right, the idea of entrusting it to the
:35:29. > :35:33.standards committee, and let's be candid about this, the coalition was
:35:34. > :35:37.very keen to go down this route and the first person to be subject to
:35:38. > :35:42.this recall and probably thrown out of the House of Commons was Tom's
:35:43. > :35:45.colleague, and now back in the government, David laws who
:35:46. > :35:50.misappropriated ?50,000 of money. And from thereon in, there was a
:35:51. > :35:52.view that we should get the standards committee in and water it
:35:53. > :35:56.down, because there was a realisation that the best will in
:35:57. > :36:02.the world, this wasn't the best idea. Is that part of the reason you
:36:03. > :36:08.have watered it down? No, what we have come forward with is a bill
:36:09. > :36:12.that reflects when serious action needs to be taken. Mark himself has
:36:13. > :36:16.admitted that one of the problems with the bill from Zac Goldsmith is
:36:17. > :36:22.that people can almost, willy-nilly, launch petitions and sometimes of a
:36:23. > :36:25.politically motivated nature against their opponents. Imagine what will
:36:26. > :36:29.happen in every marginal constituency. Political opponent --
:36:30. > :36:33.opponents will launch petition of the petition to unseat the opponent.
:36:34. > :36:37.You are nodding your head, and I will come back to you. But I must
:36:38. > :36:43.bring Owen Smith in. You are nodding your head, so you agree that you
:36:44. > :36:50.will support the bill. I was in favour of recall. Which version? I
:36:51. > :36:58.am more in favour of something akin to Zac Goldsmith's. The recall Bill
:36:59. > :37:01.currently looks pretty thin. The problem is is that it leaves recall
:37:02. > :37:05.still largely in the hands of Parliament, and the whole point
:37:06. > :37:08.about recall is that we need to make sure that the public is central to
:37:09. > :37:13.the decision. But it's not easy, because Tom is equally right, if you
:37:14. > :37:18.set the threshold at too low a level you will end up with MPs being
:37:19. > :37:27.attacked. Frankly, the public doesn't really like is it all right
:37:28. > :37:29.now. You might say that there are some amazing constituency MPs. But
:37:30. > :37:37.even the amazing once would have people who don't like them. Let Zac
:37:38. > :37:43.have a word, because he wanted to come back. Who is presenting this
:37:44. > :37:48.programme? You or me? As it stands, you would not support the bill?
:37:49. > :37:50.There is nothing in the bill about the standards committee, so I
:37:51. > :37:55.presume the government will say something about it. We have run out
:37:56. > :38:00.of time, but go ahead. Simply to say there is a safeguard, 20% threshold.
:38:01. > :38:04.There are 40,000 people who took part in the online petition, quite a
:38:05. > :38:09.detailed one, who believes that 20% is the right level, so for me to be
:38:10. > :38:13.recall from my constituency, 15,000 people would have to sign the
:38:14. > :38:17.petition and then there would be a recall referendum. That would not
:38:18. > :38:18.happen unless I had badly let my constituents down. There is nothing
:38:19. > :38:20.to fear from recall. Now, if they vote
:38:21. > :38:22."Yes" on Thursday Scotland will Well, last week, motivated
:38:23. > :38:27.apparently by a tightening in the polls, the parties supporting a
:38:28. > :38:30."no" vote came together to promise the swift transfer of additional
:38:31. > :38:32.powers to the Scottish Parliament. But will any post-referendum
:38:33. > :38:34.settlement be fair to people Giles wheeled out
:38:35. > :38:51.his moodbox onto the streets You could not get a more binary
:38:52. > :38:54.question in the Scottish referendum, yes or no, but that's not what we're
:38:55. > :38:57.asking this morning. The Scots have been offered if they vote no
:38:58. > :39:01.something called Devo Max which means they don't have to make cuts
:39:02. > :39:07.to the NHS or welfare benefits and they would get tax raising powers.
:39:08. > :39:14.So the question is, is that fair or unfair to the rest of the UK? From
:39:15. > :39:20.what I know of it, probably unfair, slightly, to the rest of the UK.
:39:21. > :39:26.Better for the Scots. Pop your ball in the unfair slot of the mood box.
:39:27. > :39:34.The Scottish referendum. I don't know anything. That's a big question
:39:35. > :39:40.on Monday morning with a hangover. I think it's fair to the rest of the
:39:41. > :39:45.UK. I think other parts of the UK should probably be offered a similar
:39:46. > :39:52.deal if that happens. Yes. For a hungover man, that's a smart point.
:39:53. > :39:55.I think it is the incompetent politicians trying to bribe the
:39:56. > :39:57.Scots. I am very much for the union, but I think this is a pathetic
:39:58. > :40:06.attempt to win a few votes. They should have more power to
:40:07. > :40:09.decide where they want to spend their money, whether it is the
:40:10. > :40:14.National Health Service or universities. But within the UK? In
:40:15. > :40:20.the UK. I think they should stay in the UK. Technically, it might not be
:40:21. > :40:24.fair, the way the vote is constructive. It has caused so much
:40:25. > :40:27.conversation and the offer of an expanded sense of devolution, so
:40:28. > :40:31.that is useful for everybody. You are very much in the fair camp. Pop
:40:32. > :40:37.that in the box for me. Don't walk off with the ball. Sorry, I'm not
:40:38. > :40:41.paying attention. Doesn't sound like a fair deal for us. Seems like they
:40:42. > :40:49.are getting a big slice of the cake and we are left with the crumbs. Any
:40:50. > :40:52.colour? Any colour you like. No significance to the colour of the
:40:53. > :40:58.balls. Probably fair because it's just extra powers, not a lot of
:40:59. > :41:01.difference. Probably slightly unfair. A bit of a knee jerk
:41:02. > :41:03.reaction from the government, trying to placate the Scots at the last
:41:04. > :41:11.minute. I know the Scottish are having a
:41:12. > :41:18.vote, so should the rest of the UK have a vote? I think it's really
:41:19. > :41:24.unfair. You give them more powers, if they decide that way. Unfair.
:41:25. > :41:29.The only thing we can be confident about the Scottish referendum is
:41:30. > :41:35.that it is going to be very close, and it looks on that border of
:41:36. > :41:38.50/50. And the irony is, so is this. The interesting thing is the
:41:39. > :41:43.different reasons why people have gone fair or unfair but we have
:41:44. > :41:56.counted, and unfair as just, just got it. -- has just. Owen Smith, has
:41:57. > :42:00.it been a bribe on the back of a panic and too much offered to
:42:01. > :42:05.Scotland that will lead to resentment in the rest of the UK if
:42:06. > :42:08.Scotland votes yes? Not at all. Labour had a devolution commission
:42:09. > :42:12.in Scotland eight months ago and proposed that we would have new
:42:13. > :42:15.powers for Scotland over taxation, welfare and housing benefit, and at
:42:16. > :42:19.the same time we announced we would provide the same offer to Wales,
:42:20. > :42:22.putting Wales on the same footing as England in respect of the model of
:42:23. > :42:27.powers, and only three months ago, we had a report and a speech from Ed
:42:28. > :42:31.Miliband talking about devolution to the English regions. We've been
:42:32. > :42:35.talking about it for a long time. I started writing about it in 2000. I
:42:36. > :42:39.will point you to the publication. Please do. I cannot wait. If
:42:40. > :42:43.Scotland votes no and gets the powers is there an appetite in Wales
:42:44. > :42:48.for the same level of autonomy? There's an appetite for the same
:42:49. > :42:54.sort of powers. Devolution, but is their independence desire? No, but
:42:55. > :42:59.there's appetite for power. How much would they like, in terms of
:43:00. > :43:02.tax-raising powers, for example? We think the Welsh people would have to
:43:03. > :43:06.be given a vote on it. We think Wales should have the same
:43:07. > :43:10.tax-raising powers as Scotland. 15p in the pound, the ability to set a
:43:11. > :43:13.progressive rate, as we propose that Scotland, but unlike in Scotland
:43:14. > :43:17.where we never had a vote on tax-raising powers, we would have to
:43:18. > :43:19.have a referendum to determine if Wales would be better off under the
:43:20. > :43:25.scenario and whether the Welsh people wanted. Gosh, another
:43:26. > :43:30.referendum. It's important stuff. Crumbs, I heard, and England left
:43:31. > :43:33.with the leftovers to coin a phrase. Is that how you see it? Do you agree
:43:34. > :43:37.with John Redwood that it is Is that how you see it? Do you agree
:43:38. > :43:41.for an English parliament? There cannot be all this autonomy for
:43:42. > :43:45.Scotland, possibly Wales and Northern Ireland in the future and
:43:46. > :43:48.Scotland, possibly Wales and England gets nothing? It was a bit
:43:49. > :43:52.of a panic measure, watching Gordon Brown, who has no mandate for any of
:43:53. > :43:57.this, a man who led his party to 29% of the vote at the last election and
:43:58. > :44:00.was thrown out, and suddenly announced on the back of an envelope
:44:01. > :44:06.that these are the new powers you will get. He didn't offer as much as
:44:07. > :44:09.the Conservatives. The truth is, there has been desperation from the
:44:10. > :44:14.political establishment to make sure we get the right result. David
:44:15. > :44:19.Cameron probably sanctioned it. I think he went along with it after.
:44:20. > :44:23.There will be resentment from England in particular, I think about
:44:24. > :44:26.the idea of more powers. The idea of having this referendum is to make it
:44:27. > :44:30.clear once and for all, you go independent or not, and if you
:44:31. > :44:35.don't, we will have similar powers. My own view, and I do agree with
:44:36. > :44:37.John Redwood, we now need to think about the idea of having a
:44:38. > :44:42.federalised United Kingdom, have an English Parliament, and the truth
:44:43. > :44:47.for all of us as politicians is this, if we don't grasp the nettle,
:44:48. > :44:50.I can tell you one person who will, that is Nigel Farage that when be in
:44:51. > :44:55.the interest of the political class or the constituents we represent. If
:44:56. > :45:01.we are going to extend the devolution plus group of powers to
:45:02. > :45:04.Scotland, at the self same time, I'd like to see the bill bringing
:45:05. > :45:10.forward making it clear that there would be powers for England, Wales
:45:11. > :45:17.and Northern Ireland. For some it would be absurd to continue having
:45:18. > :45:22.Scottish MPs voting on English-only matters if they have more power and
:45:23. > :45:26.have powers over tax and spend that they should be voting on what could
:45:27. > :45:33.be an English budget? Well this is a problem that has to be solved. What
:45:34. > :45:37.is your view? I think first, it will require devolution to Wales and more
:45:38. > :45:42.devolution to Wales and more devolution to England. I am not sure
:45:43. > :45:46.about whether the English Parliament is the solution. What the Liberal
:45:47. > :45:52.Democrats have been advocating is devolution which is something that
:45:53. > :45:57.people opt into in England in terms of regions like Cornwall. What does
:45:58. > :46:01.that mean? Well some cities want to take on, have wanted to take on
:46:02. > :46:05.responsibilities for certain aspects of their infrastructure and training
:46:06. > :46:10.that we allow them to do that at a pace that is needed. But I accept
:46:11. > :46:16.that the question of Scottish MPs voting on English matters is one
:46:17. > :46:21.that, to which a solution is needed. What has been interesting is that it
:46:22. > :46:24.has forced the pace for the Conservative the Labour Party and
:46:25. > :46:29.the Liberal Democrats to find a collective position on this. But
:46:30. > :46:37.should your Scottish MPs be able to vote on issues that do not affect
:46:38. > :46:44.their constituents. If slapped votes no -- Scotland votes no would it be
:46:45. > :46:48.fair to let that continue? It becomes something that people in
:46:49. > :46:53.England understand less and less the more power that is devolved to
:46:54. > :46:58.Scotland, but they play a key role. So you don't think it is fair. It
:46:59. > :47:01.something we would need to work on quickly having made the commitment
:47:02. > :47:06.from a day after the referendum to move in relation to Scotland. Do you
:47:07. > :47:09.agree it could be particularly pertinent for a Labour Party,
:47:10. > :47:15.talking to John Reid about this, if you have a Labour Government that is
:47:16. > :47:23.reliept on Scottish -- reliant on Scottish Labour MP and tries to push
:47:24. > :47:27.through a budget which is only affecting England and English
:47:28. > :47:32.constituencies it would be ridiculous to have Scottish Labour
:47:33. > :47:39.MPs voting. It would be if it was as simple as that Well it is. But what
:47:40. > :47:43.you would have is a Scottish rate that would demur from an English
:47:44. > :47:47.rate and the English rate would be relevant. All health and public
:47:48. > :47:51.services spending in Wales and in Scotland is because of the Barnett
:47:52. > :47:55.formula contingent on how much is allocated in England. So no more
:47:56. > :47:59.austerity for the NHS in Scotland that would be protected. Nobody is
:48:00. > :48:04.talking about devolving these things. What did you mean... This is
:48:05. > :48:08.not simple and it is not as you describe it. You're not giving
:48:09. > :48:14.powers to Scotland. What I'm trying to get to what is it that is being
:48:15. > :48:19.offered to Scotland, because if they're not going to get powers,
:48:20. > :48:24.that is a different and to some extent the yes campaign are right.
:48:25. > :48:31.That is not what I said. I want to make this point. It is important for
:48:32. > :48:36.voters to understand what is being offered. If the parties are saying
:48:37. > :48:40.we will protect the nature fres austerity in Scotland -- the NHS
:48:41. > :48:44.from austerity in Scotland why not here? That is a different question.
:48:45. > :48:51.You asked what are we offering Scotland. We are offering Scotland
:48:52. > :49:00.the ability to change rate rates and make 60% of all the monies spent in
:49:01. > :49:06.Scotland raised in Scotland. However English tax rates UK-tax rates would
:49:07. > :49:10.be relevant, because they would be shifting from an English rate. All
:49:11. > :49:15.of those things would be voted on by Scottish or Welsh members and be of
:49:16. > :49:19.relevance to the people of Scotland or Wales. It is not as cleanly
:49:20. > :49:29.divided as you are making out. On that note I will have to say goodbye
:49:30. > :49:35.to you all. Now back to Scotland. I am not sure we went far from it. We
:49:36. > :49:47.spoke to John Reid earlier in the programme. We can speak n to Blair
:49:48. > :49:52.Jenkins of the yes campaign. Do you think people will vote yes, because
:49:53. > :49:56.they want a more left-wing and fairer society in Scotland? I think
:49:57. > :50:01.fairness has been a big part of the debate. The idea that as an
:50:02. > :50:05.independent country we can have a more socially just society has been
:50:06. > :50:10.a powerful part of yes campaign. I know a lot of people who have come
:50:11. > :50:15.into the deep and broad yes movement have only come in or have largely
:50:16. > :50:21.come in because of the idea of a more equal society and greater
:50:22. > :50:26.equality and that than a big part of the campaign. Do you think a 3% cut
:50:27. > :50:30.in corporation tax will result in a fairer Scotland? That is an SNP
:50:31. > :50:34.policy. I'm not in the SNP. I understand that but I'm asking for
:50:35. > :50:40.you view on that policy. Do you think that would result in a fairer
:50:41. > :50:45.society? I give can you my views as an individual. If you reduce
:50:46. > :50:49.corporation tax you bring in investment and create thousands of
:50:50. > :50:55.new jobs. So this is something that will have to be put by the SNP in
:50:56. > :50:59.the manifesto in the first election to an independent Scottish
:51:00. > :51:03.Parliament. Do you think it is fairer? Will it help poorer people
:51:04. > :51:09.in Scotland and help working people in Scotland or will it result in a
:51:10. > :51:14.race to the bottom on corporation tax to attract investment and
:51:15. > :51:22.actually is seen as a tax cut for very wealthy? It is not a tax cut
:51:23. > :51:26.aimed at individuals. It will be judged good if people felt it would
:51:27. > :51:31.create more well paid jobs in Scotland. So it is only one of a
:51:32. > :51:36.number of thing we think we can do. There is a view we should raise the
:51:37. > :51:42.minimum wage to the level of living wage and only with independence can
:51:43. > :51:46.we protect public services. This is again, these policy issues are
:51:47. > :51:51.things that all of the parties in Scotland, the Scottish Labour Party
:51:52. > :51:58.and others will have to put to the electorate. The notion of an
:51:59. > :52:02.independent Scotland could set a greater Pars to social justice is a
:52:03. > :52:07.big part of the campaign. What do you say to George Galloway who said
:52:08. > :52:11.that Alex Salmond will cut the taxes on companies to 3%, business will
:52:12. > :52:15.only be attracted to come here, a country of five million people if
:52:16. > :52:24.there is low regularration and low levels of taxation. You can't have
:52:25. > :52:30.Scandinavian levels of tax. He is out of touch with the debate in
:52:31. > :52:34.Scotland. There is a strong view that we can aspire to be more like a
:52:35. > :52:39.Scandinavian society, but it is possible to have both and have
:52:40. > :52:44.successful economy and strong public services and a high degree of
:52:45. > :52:49.commitment to public services. So I don't think there is a need to be
:52:50. > :52:53.engaged in a race to the bottom. You wouldn't get elected in Scotland if
:52:54. > :52:58.you propose to reduce wages. You would have no chance of being
:52:59. > :53:04.elected. If we look then at working people again, Gordon Brown wrote
:53:05. > :53:08.over the weekend the sharing of welfare, health and pensions is best
:53:09. > :53:12.served by staying in the union and Scotland is being sold a lie about
:53:13. > :53:19.independence when looking at the economics. That doesn't stack up.
:53:20. > :53:24.You know we know the total cost of social protection including pensions
:53:25. > :53:30.is a smaller proportion, a smaller share of the total Scottish GDP than
:53:31. > :53:34.the UK as a whole. Pensions are more affordable in an independent
:53:35. > :53:37.Scotland. In the years of devolved Scottish Parliament under successive
:53:38. > :53:40.administrations, the Labour and Liberal Democrat administration and
:53:41. > :53:43.the SNP administration, we have demonstrated a greater commitment to
:53:44. > :53:47.social protection and to looking after one another and I think the
:53:48. > :53:51.Westminster agenda, where increasingly it seems public
:53:52. > :53:55.services are regarded as a regrettable ex-pension, that is not
:53:56. > :54:00.part of -- expense, that is not part of Scottish debate and people here
:54:01. > :54:04.are confident we can do better and the UK state pension is about the
:54:05. > :54:10.worst in Europe. So we believe we can do better. There is a belief
:54:11. > :54:14.here that we can set our our priority and we believe we can grow
:54:15. > :54:17.our economy and improve the living opportunities, the life
:54:18. > :54:25.opportunities of more of our people. Let's turn to something else and the
:54:26. > :54:31.protests against the BBC. Did the yes campaign organise those? No,
:54:32. > :54:34.what you saw outside the BBC was a spontaneous demonstration, social
:54:35. > :54:39.media has lots of things on it and one thing you can do is gather
:54:40. > :54:45.people together quickly. It was a spontaneous protest by people who
:54:46. > :54:50.felt that the BBC was not reporting the referendum impartially. They're
:54:51. > :54:58.entitled to do that. Let's see the pictures. People got together if you
:54:59. > :55:05.didn't sanction it, do you condemn the protests? No, to the best of my
:55:06. > :55:12.knowledge and I spoke to BBC staff here today, and everyone said the
:55:13. > :55:16.protest was good natured and not intimidating, it was a thing that
:55:17. > :55:21.people do in a democracy, that is when they have a feeling they want
:55:22. > :55:25.to vent they vent it. It is a big rally. I don't know if it was
:55:26. > :55:32.intimidating, do you think it will work in your favour? I don't know.
:55:33. > :55:35.Because we didn't organise it. It was something that happened. A lot
:55:36. > :55:41.of what is happening in Scotland now, we are the, the yes movement is
:55:42. > :55:48.the biggest grass movement Scotland has seen. A lot it self-generated by
:55:49. > :55:55.local yes groups. So I think what you saw yesterday was an expression
:55:56. > :56:01.of anger and hurt that some people felt the BBC wasn't doing its job.
:56:02. > :56:06.Over what though exactly? Is the BBC particularly being condemned for
:56:07. > :56:11.drawing attention to things the yes campaign does not want to hear. Does
:56:12. > :56:13.it not questions being put to somebody like Alex Salmond who is
:56:14. > :56:19.more than capable of dealing with them? I am sure Alex Salmond, as a
:56:20. > :56:24.journalist I have found him he is robust in dealing with journalists.
:56:25. > :56:31.So you are afraid of being questioned? I don't think anything
:56:32. > :56:37.could suggest that. People are reflecting the sense that there has
:56:38. > :56:41.been an unwillingness of part of London-based journalists to
:56:42. > :56:45.understand what is happening here the local BBC journalists get elowed
:56:46. > :56:49.aside by the network journalists by the view that there is something
:56:50. > :56:56.strange going on. And those who follow the debate understand it is
:56:57. > :57:01.an open and democratic process and it has been a fantastic thing to go
:57:02. > :57:06.through. The different people have different views, there has been a
:57:07. > :57:10.lot of tension as it got closer, you would expect that that tempers
:57:11. > :57:16.running high and we have seen Jim Murphy being pelted with eggs. We
:57:17. > :57:22.have seen rallies and these things are legitimate in a democracy, but
:57:23. > :57:26.are you confident that there haven't been threats made to businesses who
:57:27. > :57:33.want to speak out against independence and that the media are
:57:34. > :57:38.not being stopped from asking awkward questions? What we notice
:57:39. > :57:41.pressure that is being applied to companies and businesses to
:57:42. > :57:44.intervene is being applied from the no side and it is David Cameron
:57:45. > :57:49.having people around to dreetd to encourage them -- Downing Street to
:57:50. > :57:55.encourage them to intimidate people out of voting yes. The campaign
:57:56. > :57:59.here, it has been a good natured campaign. The very, very small
:58:00. > :58:04.number of occasions where one or two people on either side have behaved
:58:05. > :58:08.inappropriately should not distort the nature of the campaign. The
:58:09. > :58:15.whole world is watching Scotland and the reporting is of a amazele we can
:58:16. > :58:18.-- amazement we can have a debate in such a respectful way. I'm proud of
:58:19. > :58:24.debate in Scotland and I think people on both sides have handled it
:58:25. > :58:27.well. Thank you very much. Only a few more days to go.
:58:28. > :58:30.And if you want more on the Scottish Referendum there's a Panorama
:58:31. > :58:32.Special on tonight presented by my colleague Alan Little looking
:58:33. > :58:35.at what has happened in the past four decades to transform the
:58:36. > :58:46.The One o'clock News is starting over on BBC One now.
:58:47. > :58:49.I'll be here again at noon tomorrow - do join me then.
:58:50. > :59:12.The guns fell silent on November 11th 1918, but the shadow