19/09/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Supporters of the Union celebrate as Scotland votes No to independence


Alex Salmond concedes defeat in the campaign, but says the result


shows huge demand for change and calls for the swift devolution


David Cameron promises to deliver on his commitment to more Scottish


But he also says it's time for English devolution,


including an end to Scottish MPs voting on purely English matters


Ed Miliband could lack a majority for his English agenda


if he couldn't count on his Scottish votes.


In the end, the NOs had it and by a bigger 10-point majority than


Over the next hour, we'll bring you all the latest


on last night's historic vote and the big constitutional changes for


the whole of the UK which are now promised by all the main parties.


It was a solid margin of victory for the No campaign in Scotland,


one that looks like settling the matter for the foreseeable future.


55% voted in favour of Scotland remaining part of the UK,


It was the highest ever turn-out in a British election,


with 85% of those who'd registered to vote casting their ballot.


That meant that just over two million voters said No -


Speaking shortly after 6am this morning, the First Minister


of Scotland, Alex Salmond, conceded defeat, but demanded that party


leaders in Westminster make good on their last-minute campaign promise


Scotland has, by majority, decided not, at this stage, to become an


independent country. I accept that verdict of the people and I call on


all of Scotland to follow suit and access the democratic verdict of the


people of Scotland. - accept. All of us in this campaign will say


that 55%, that 1.6 million votes is a substantial vote for Scottish


independence and the future of this country.


Less than an hour later, at just after 7am, David Cameron spoke to


The people of Scotland have spoken and it is a clear result. They've


kept our country of four nations together. Like millions of other


people, I am delighted. As I said during the campaign, it would have


broken my heart to see our United Kingdom come to an end and I know


that sentiment was shared by people not just across our country, bottles


around the world because of what we've achieved together in the past


and what we can do together in the future.


But he didn't just repeat his promise to Scotland.


Under pressure from his backbenchers and even


a few cabinet ministers, he had a commitment to the rest of the UK.


The crucial part missing from this national discussing - discussion is


England. We've heard the voice of Scotland and now the millions of


voices of England must also be heard. The question of English votes


for English laws, the so-called West Lothian question, requires a


decisive answer. Just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish


Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so to England,


as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on


these issues. All this must take in place in tandem with and at the same


pace as the Scotland. The Prime Minister adding in English


devolution and maybe more devolution for Wales and Northern Ireland, on


top of his promise for more devolution to Scotland. We will be


joined shortly by Kevin McCann of the observer, who backed the yes


campaign. We are waiting for him in class guy. - Glasgow.


And with me here in London are Anne McElvoy of the Economist,


Let's talk now to the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon,


Last night was a very good result for the no campaign. If we turn our


minds back to what a lot of us were thinking at the outset when this


referendum was announced, we thought the result would perhaps be more


obviously a no. What has happened is the authority Mr Cameron has had has


been eaten away and now he has to regain that. He has the ten point no


vote under his belt, but if it had gone the other way, we would be


talking about whether he would survive. Is it going to be the


disunited States of Britain? How does he get around that? Ten points


isn't bad as a lead. It is a good lead. If I was advising Scots, I


would say listen carefully to what Alex Salmond said, he said at this


stage. Would you really not take no for an answer? That the Scottish


National question. I don't think Scotland needs a Scottish National


party any more, it needs a realignment of its own politics so


it can get on with the business of discussing its own top one of the


striking aspects of the campaign was a lot of Scots didn't know what the


Scottish Government was responsible for. Now it will get more powers so


there's an argument for realising - realigning in Scotland. There was a


panic and we saw that panic. There was a sense in which constant nation


- constitutional reform was privatised to Gordon Brown.


Outsourcing. I like the word privatised and Gordon Brown being


together. He's now living with that, he has to do something that. The


backbenches and some of his cabinet ministers are furious at the lack of


consultation so they are saying, you can go ahead and do this, but we


want English devolution as well. We are back to the Michael Howard


proposal. English votes, England needs more of a say. David Cameron


back then was supportive of that view, and then decided to go for an


all in approach, turned himself into that kind of Tory leader. If he


turned himself back, he has to take this seriously. Devo-max being


thrown onto the table. It's not devo-max. Devo-max applies to


basically everything is devolved, including all taxation powers except


foreign policy, defence and make - macroeconomic policy. Devo-max would


involve Scots collecting all their tax. This is TiVo plus.


- devo-plus. This is where the immediate pressure is going to come


from. Why did he not consult his party? They didn't expect this.


Would it have been better to put that devo thing on the agenda


earlier so everyone could have a say? The sense that his party didn't


have a say was what I was driving at. Although they have a fair idea


what they want to do in Scotland, I would suggest they are at base camp


with what they want to do in England and there is no agreement between


the parties. The problem is every attempt the governments have had to


make the English accept greater devolution has been defeated by


English people. Most viewers of this programme do not even know that in


2004 there was a referendum in which 900,000 people voted by 78% to 22%


not to have a regional assembly. When they put the question of having


an elected mayors to the major cities in the autumn of 2012, eight


out of the nine asked said no. Only Bristol said yes and Doncaster said


they wanted to retain one. The assumption made that the English are


gagging for particular forms of devolution is not true. Talk to


people about constitutional reform in this country, as I found out, is


really tricky. But what has happened in England, and the polls show


this, is that with Scottish devolution and the Scottish argument


being on our TV sets every night, the English are starting to say, if


it's good enough to Scotland, we'll have some of that. Don't divide us


by region, don't think that decentralisation to big cities is


the same as devolution, we want to vote on our schools in the same way


Scotland does. David is right, every time they've been offered Ham and


eggs or double ham and eggs, everybody said they didn't want ham


and dates. That's different to a situation where Scotland has been


thrown extra powers in it attempt to keep it in the union, which was


successful. The mood around it is different now to what David


describes. Things were often put to people when they weren't prepared.


Psychologically or emotionally. It's very different and the degree of


engagement in England, listening to people in supermarkets, they are


very engaged now with the Scottish question in a way they weren't. Even


if that's true, there's a problem. Morning the Prime Minister hitched


English devolution to Scottish devolution. The two had to go in


tandem. I don't see how they can do that. That's a real problem. They


got some kind of agreement about what should go to Scotland in the


event of a no vote. They should deliver on that before we start


messing around with questions of devolution in England. The question


of an English parliament is so fraught with difficulties for the


simple reason that if you have a First Minister of England, what's


the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for? You do in Germany and a


lot of federal countries. You have very powerful first ministers.


England is so much bigger than any of the other components put


together. The only equivalent of having a lender system in England


would be divide England into equal parts, London and the Midlands and


so on. And there's no appetite for that at the moment. I would support


it, but almost everything I support, people don't like. We will talk a


lot about this. Let's go live to Glasgow when Norman Smith is. What's


it like the morning after the night before? It's striking. Glass go is


one of the few places that voted yes and people are having to come to


terms with last night's decision. Although we heard a lot about the


motivation and the commitment and the pattern - Passion of the yes


side, maybe what we underestimated wants this ear - sheer determination


of the quiet no majority to come out and vote. These are people who buy


and large weren't doing interviews, they weren't doing vox pops in the


street, but in the privacy of the polling booth, they let their true


feelings show. The second thing is looking at the Labour vote, there


seemed a moment when Alex Salmond was just taking huge chunks out of


it. What we saw last night is when you look at Clackmannanshire,


Renfrewshire, those kinds of places, the Labour vote held up much


better than even some of the Labour people thought. Why? I suspect in


part it was because of Gordon Brown's intervention. He galvanised


the Labour vote where previously it seemed flat and dispirited. I do


think his intervention was almost in a motion or kick-start for the


Labour vote which in the end, by and large, hung in there on the side of


the no team. The silent majority and a more solid Labour vote explain why


at the end of the day the no side have recorded a fairly significant


victory. Norman, are we sure that the Nationalists will accept this is


over for the foreseeable future? Perhaps for a generation? Will they


look at bringing it back? Is Alex Salmond's position safe or is Nicola


Sturgeon beginning to measure the curtains? My sense of the latter


part is that Alex Salmond's position is certainly safe for now. If he had


been pushed down to 40% or below, I think it would be a very, very


different situation. He can now point to pushing up the


pro-independence phot to 45%. Bear in mind a few months ago it was down


at 25%. He's pushed it right out and he will get more powers from


Westminster so he can claim that is a significant achievement. Is


independence over for a generation? I would be cautious about that. When


Alex Salmond has said it's over for a generation, he always that is my


view. He won't be around for a generation. There will be a new


generation of Scottish Nationalists. Will they sit on their hands


forever? That's more questionable. In the interim, will the SNP


strategy not be, given where they did do well, what you would call


Labour areas, Dundee, Glasgow and so on, will they not now attempt to


replace Scottish Labour as the country's centre-left party? One of


the interesting things about this whole referendum, it is basically


round one between the Scottish National party and the Labour Party,


who are engaged in pretty much a fight to the death to be the left of


centre party in Scotland, and we will see round two in the 2016


general election, and who knows, maybe we will see Gordon Brown


against Nicola Sturgeon. But it is a fight to the death between the two


stipes -- Nicolas Sturgeon. The question is whether the Labour Party


managers to reenergise itself, rebuild itself, because it has been


profoundly damaged by the perception of being in hock to the London


party, but not for the understanding the aspirations and sentiment, and


even nationalism. There is a bit task for the Labour Party to try to


counterpart the SNP's, nation of centre politics. One of the threads


Scottish Labour may face is that the Nationalists will say all right, you


have voted no, but you can't trust these people in Westminster. They


may not deliver this home rule, as Gordon Brown called it. The surest


way of doing it is to send us to Westminster. We will keep their feet


to the fire. Obviously, the SNP, now independents has gone, has to keep


itself by continuously suggesting there is a tension between Scotland


and Westminster, but there are dangers for Alex Salmond and the SNP


in doing that, because one of the things that polls show, in


attitudinal terms, is Scotland is put in much the same as everybody


else in the United Kingdom, which leaves an immense space in the


centre right, which the SNP has imposed a Nationalist blanket over


the large sections of the centre-left and centre-right. The


question or not is whether Scotland retains that. One of the hidden


things in it has been the extraordinary performance of the


Scots Conservatives. 95% of them wanted to stay. They got the vote. I


am not completely ruling out a return of a centre-right bloc which


would give the SNP some problems. There won't be a centre right swing,


and that is why the Conservatives want all income taxed to go there,


because they want a correlation between how much the parliament


spends on how much is taxed. Then the interim, I would suggest, even


though the side one, there is something of a crisis for the


Scottish Labour Party. I think so, and I think the fact that Gordon


Brown, and I have to say, I think his performance was absolutely


instrumental in this result. I think the Scottish Labour Party looked...


I no they sense only people up there, the rising generation, the Ed


Miliband stars over the summer, and in fact it didn't seem to do much


good at all, and it was only when Gordon came up with those jump leads


he provided to the No campaign, he found the hearts and minds of the


central Belt. That's when things started to change. Gordon is not a


player now. What are you going to do now? Let me quickly go back to


Norman, finally. Does it not tell us something about the state of the


Scottish Labour Party, Norman, that the big figures on the Labour side


for better together were Alistair Darling, Westminster MP, Gordon


Brown, Westminster MP, Jim Murphy, Westminster MP, indeed at one Better


Together meeting run by Labour, they said they would rather have Ruth


Davidson fan Joanne Lamont. I take your point, but I would not


underestimate the galvanising effect this result probably has on the


Scottish Labour Party. They have been taking a battering for a long


time, and I wonder if this will give them a chance just to draw breath


and represent themselves to the Scottish people. I do also say watch


Gordon Brown. I see he is making a big speech tomorrow, just listening


to the language of that man, ice eyes he sees a role for himself back


in -- I surmise he sees a role for himself back in front line politics


in Scotland. He hasn't said as much, but the reception he has received,


he has energised, he is full of it, it has a passion for Scotland. We


remember him down at Westminster, a broken, cowled, shrunken figure. It


is like Gordon Brown of 20 years ago here. If I had money to place, I


would say Gordon Brown would seek to lead the Scottish Labour Party.


Really? Have you told Jim Murphy that yet, Norman? LAUGHTER


Not yet, that's a very good point! It is clear they are going to have


to do something. If they face an attack from the SNP on the left,


they will have to energise it. When I was out in North Lanarkshire and


Hamilton, a lot of lapsed Labour voters, a lot of people who had been


lifetime Labour voters, but they were voting yes. They were voting


for independence because they just felt that the Labour Party did not


do anything for them any more. Let's be honest, the Labour Party has been


for so long the establishment up there, and in many ways not always a


very attractive sort of establishment. And the other thing,


which I think they struggle from, is that many, many people who vote for


the Scottish National party are clearly not Nationalists. They vote


for the SNP, I think, because they think the SNP will strike a much


harder deal with Westminster politicians, and they want somebody


who will go into the corner and fight much harder than they suspect


Labour politicians, who perhaps are a bit more accommodating, because


they are part of a UK wide party. So if you a Scot who wants a better


deal for Scotland and more power devolved Scotland, and you want to


stand up to the Westminster government, you may not be a


Nationalist but you may think you know what, I think those SNP people


will get me a better deal, and I suspect that probably fuels a lot of


the SNP support up here. Norman, thanks for that, and for all of our


interviews during this campaign, it's been a pleasure, thank you very


much. Where does Labour go here? There is a danger for Labour in this


that they could lose seats to the Nationalists. They have now got this


question of the Tories in England putting the West Lothian question.


The risk is that Lynton Crosby will unleash the anti-English attack on


them. But I am not at all sure in the sort of seats where Labour are


fighting the Tories, one of the biggest problem is that was obvious


was when Ed Miliband went up to Scotland from England, nobody really


much seemed to notice him. All right, let's leave that here for the


moment. I want to go to the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, he is in


Westminster. Welcome to the Daily Politics. When the Prime Minister


outsourced constitutional reform to Gordon Brown, was the cabinet


consulted? Look, he didn't outsource it to Gordon Brown first we have


been looking at these things for a long time as you know very well,


Andrew. We had the Mackay commission looking at the sorts of things,


successive Cabinet commissions have been looking at this. William Hague


is now to take this forward, we have the Liberal Democrats participating.


Even this morning, the Scottish Nationalist party participating. The


question is will Labour stepped up to the plate and join in? Gordon


Brown made some specific devolution proposals and backed it up with a


timetable, talking about command white papers. Was that run past the


Cabinet? We have been discussing these things, as I have just told


you, for a long time. Was it run past the Cabinet? It is a simple


question. The simple answer is yes, we did discuss the constitutional


settlement, we have been doing that for a long time. Did the full


Cabinet discussed the proposal is that Gordon Brown made in his


speech, yes or no? You are getting into procedural points. Let me tell


you that the government has been discussing more devolution for


Scotland ever since the Mackay commission reported... Was the


Cabinet consulted? The Cabinet has been involved in this whole process


right from the very start, and we have now set out a very clear


timetable, not simply Gordon Brown's timetable, we have set that


out now, there will be a working party under William Hague, a


consultation, a white paper, then draft legislation. We are going to


aim to do all of that before the election express. Did you know what


Gordon Brown was going to say before he said it? We all know what the


drift of this is, we have got to offer the Scottish people and the


Scottish Parliament a better settlement. We have to do the same


for England as well. You know the drift but not the content? I don't


look at the exact content of Gordon Brown's speeches, I don't think he


looks at mine, but we are all clear, ourselves and the Liberal Democrats


and the SNP this morning, that we need to re-examine the current


devolution settlement both for England and for Scotland, and we


have now set out a very clear timetable for doing that. So the


question of who exactly said what when and so on really is less


academic than that commitment from the three main parties to get on


with this now. Do you agree with your former Cabinet colleague, Owen


Paterson, that the Prime Minister has agreed to some "very rash


promises"? No, I don't agree with that. We need to have more


devolution, and acknowledge the strength of feeling in Scotland.


They need more control over tax, overspending, over the welfare


system, but it's equally important to recognise that you can't do that


without a fair and balanced system that will allowing them to have the


same, and will make sure that English votes only for English laws


and English taxes. That is what I think Owen Paterson will welcome.


English votes for English laws, is that the policy of the coalition or


the policy of the Conservative Party? It is certainly the policy of


the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister said that at this morning.


The Liberal Democrats too want to see a rebalanced political


settlement. The question you should be asking is Labour prepared to


answer this, prepared to step up and accent that Scottish Labour MPs


should no longer vote on taxes and laws and welfare that applies only


in England, and you should be asking Labour that very question. I am


always grateful when you help me to give questions to the Labour Party,


though to be honest, I do really need your help. Let me ask you this


instead, if the coalition, the Lib Dems, are largely onside with this,


why did Danny Alexander say on the 17th of September, only a few days


ago, there is no party proposing to take away the voting rights of


Scottish MPs, that is not part of the agenda, that is not what is


going to happen? I will help you further here by saying obviously you


need to ask Danny Alexander to account for what he has said. We set


out our position very carefully, the new settlement has to be fairer...


But you don't me you had the Lib Dems onside. They are onside in


recognising that we'd have a more balanced settlement. That is not


going to happen, what a bit of the English language do you not


understand about Danny Alexander saying it is not going to happen. We


will see. William Hague will convene these discussions with the liberal


Democrats, and part of the Coalition Government. Obviously, we hope other


parties will contribute as well. The other encouraging news is that the


SNP will, you have already accepted that you need to press Labour on


that. Nobody has an exact way forward here. It is a difficult


question, but we are going to get to grips with it and publish our


proposals before the general election. The prime and are still


says that he needed consensus to take these English devolution


proposals forward. If you have Danny Alexander saying it's not going to


happen, and we know from speaking to Labour MPs that that is the last


thing they want, to lose their voting rights of Scottish MPs, where


is the consensus coming from? All parties have to accept, now, that


there is a great deal of unease in England, in other parts of the


United Kingdom. If more powers are granted to Scotland without some


compensating rebalancing of the Blitz was adamant. You will hear


voices in the Labour Party, like John Denham, recognising that, and I


am sure there are English Liberal Democrats who will recognise that as


well. If you cannot get agreement on English devolution, does the plan


for Scottish devolution, as outlined in Gordon Brown's timetable with


government backing, does it still go ahead if there is not an agreement


for English devolution? We are hoping for agreement, we are not


planning on failing, and we are hoping for draft legislation before


the election so it can be legislated, and be in the


manifestoes of the political parties at the general election, so the


electorate can also pronounce on whether they access these proposals,


then we can put them into statute if they do, early in 2015. In Europe,


the unlikely event you don't get agreement, others may think it is


highly unlikely you don't, can Scottish devolution go-ahead on its


own? Can you meet that thou that was made on the front page of the daily


record to the Scottish people come up Will they have to wait until you


sort out English devolution? Our aim is to get agreement on this before


the general election, and that is what we're doing urgently now in


response to the vote last night and the unease that is in inland that if


any further parties -- in England if any further powers are given to


Scotland, they should be balanced in England. We are not aiming to fail.


Can you just explain to our viewers, including your backbench colleagues


who may be watching this, what is the logic of giving the Scottish


Parliament substantial tax raising powers, which is what you intend to


do, and at the same time enshrining and guarantee -- guaranteeing the


Barnett formula? The Barnett formula is declining in importance. It still


gives per capita spending in Scotland anything from ?1200 to


?1500 more. That recognises some of the differences in Scotland, the


wider geography and some of the issues in Scotland of dealing with


more remote areas. I'm sorry, the Barnett formula does not recognise


that. The Barnett formula is purely based on population. It has nothing


to do with geography, nothing to do with need, it is purely population.


Let me correct you. The reason the formula was introduced in 1978,


statistically it's based on population, but it was precisely to


introduced give the Scottish office and now the Scottish Government more


flexibility to move spending between different spending lines to cope


with the fact that Scotland has a much greater landmass, a different


geography, remote areas and there are more Scottish choices to be made


between different spending lines. Why did Joe Barnett tell me that it


had nothing to do with need or geography? Why did he tell me that?


Do you do - do you know more about it than the man who invented it? I


know the purpose of it. It does reflect the fact that Scotland has


different needs and a different geography to England, just as in


England we make sure there is more spending that goes to remote areas


like Cornwall or the north-west of England or where ever it is. We


recognise these things in public spending, but it is declining in its


significance because we have delegated more powers anyway to the


Scottish Parliament. If it's to do with geography and sparse


population, why does Wales do badly out of the Barnett formula and


Scotland do well? I don't agree. It does! I don't agree. They do better


than England out of the formula and that recognises that peripheral


parts of the UK have different geographies and slightly different


priorities when it comes to what they want to spend their money on.


It also recognises that they should have the ability to switch spending


if they don't need it in particular areas and they have a higher


priority in others. That was the essence of the Barnett formula. It


gave them more flexibility and more abilities to switch. All right,


thank you. It's a busy day for you, but at least you don't have to worry


about repositioning the nuclear submarines! Let's go to Glasgow. I


said we would speak to Kevin McCabe of the Observer. He backed the yes


campaign. Why did you lose? Hello, say that again. Why did you lose? I


think the stampede over the last ten days of the four horsemen of the


British establishment coming north, spreading scare stories... I thought


it was the three Stooges! If you include big business, corporate


interest, the banks, Westminster, the massed ranks of the endless


-based media, they were spending - spreading a compelling story for


people in Scotland watching the pennies, people with a new mortgage


trying to find a deposit, a couple of children preschool who perhaps


had espoused sympathy for nationalism and independents in the


last 18 months, but in the secrecy and the quietness of the polling


booth began to consider things. I think also the Nationalists were


always climbing down escalator, basically. They had started off with


a deficit of 25 to 30 points. 22. They had glimpsed Eden over the


horizon about ten days ago. There was always going to be a tall order.


I think there were still questions about currency and it's all very


well for us and the chattering classes and the political classes to


talk about currency or dismissed concerns, but working men wondering


what their pay packet will look like can be quite a compelling


distraction. I always thought we called them the blethering classes


in Scotland! I understand all that and I'm sure that played a role in


the no vote being larger than most people thought it would be. But


didn't we know the impact that that was having and yet right up to the


end, most of the leaders of the yes campaign that time it worked pretty


convincing to me that they thought they would win. Well, we've


basically in new territory. Most of those people would have been


veterans of multiparty elections and even some of the posters I spoke to


in the last week were nursing some serious misgivings and wondering if


they were going to be in 1992 situation again when they called


finial Kinnock and he was beaten roundly. - Neil Kinnock. One of the


things was the sheer scale of numbers. They had never been in this


territory before with an expected 80% plus turnout. They were looking


at margins of error. With the best will in the world, no matter how


good the strategists were on either side, it was new territory. One


thing the Nationalists have always been good at is espousing optimism,


always talking about hope. They were much more visible throughout the


campaign than the no side. Perhaps there were some people on the


national side who were a little more seduced by the visible signs of


optimism and confidence and what we were going to do than was perhaps


the case. That palpably was the case. Where does the independence


movement go from here? It's a very interesting question. Alex Salmond,


as you know, has been talking about independence being off the table for


a generation. However, that's not what I'm hearing up here. The four


council areas where the yes vote held up were amongst the most poor,


the ones with the most problems of social deprivation. These are major


Labour areas. The Nationalists would not have achieved anything like a


45% vote if it hadn't been for the wholesale defection of tens of


thousands of Labour voters. Therein lies a massive problem for the


Labour Party in Scotland. A year after the Westminster elections, we


have the Holyrood elections. Thousands of Labour voters who were


made to feel like ghosts and demonised in their own party may


choose then to visit some replies all on the Scottish Labour Party.


That would probably lead to a second consecutive overall SNP majority. If


the parties of the union do not deliver the full extent of their


promises of greater devolved powers, many in the SNP, I suspect, will see


that as a mandate, along with the fact that 1.6 million people voted


for independence last night. They'll see that as a mandate for calling


for another referendum and that's a problem that Ed Miliband, David


Cameron. Ed Miliband has a problem with what has happened to the Labour


Party in Scotland. Is it not a problem for Scotland, too, that it


gets locked up in referendums and the constitutional issue takes up


all the energy when what is needed is energy for economic growth, jobs,


anti-poverty policies, child poverty strategies. Isn't there a danger


that constitutional matters overshadow everything else? Yeah,


there is a degree of that, Andrew, but you know what else? Fashion all


politicians, careerist politicians, which Westminster is full of these


days, not to mention a lot of Holyrood, they hate the fact, and


they are scared, a lot of these people were scared to their very


foundations because of what happened in Scotland in the last 18 months.


There was a transferrin is, if you like, of political know-how and


politics taken out of the ivory towers, the gilded chambers of


Holyrood and Westminster and onto the streets. The last thing they


would want is for this to happen again. I've seen a lot of people on


both sides energised and politicised and that means tens of thousands


more people now have the tools and the information and the ability to


obtain that information, to scrutinise the doings of the elected


masters to a greater degree than was previously apparent. Thank you for


that. It is clear that although you didn't get the result you wanted,


Scottish politics will not be the same again, or even Scottish


society. Thank you for joining us. What did you make of that? Kevin or


your Gilbert and Sullivan interviewed with Michael Fallon?


Only the British Conservative Party in its present state could bring you


such an Op Urreta as they are now going to. The obvious answer is we


will sort out the Scottish question and then we will get together with


the other parties and sort out the bigger English question. Maybe David


Cameron's backbenchers won't let him do that. They can be fetid. -


defeated. What will the Lib Dems do if the coalition? It's quite


possible there is no proposition to go with Labour or the Liberal


Democrats. Relying upon a whole lot of Cross backbenchers is not his


best option. Nevertheless, that seems to be the way he's playing it.


I greatly enjoyed going through that with Michael Fallon, but he has to


make this thing work. He seemed to suggest the solution would be found


in seven months. This is one of this you just constitutional shifts. This


is the sort of thing countries spend years on. The problem David Cameron


has now got, he's got from now until the election, cross voters in


England, Nigel Farage this morning stirring it up, he has to produce


something that looks like it can balance out the devolution offered


to Scotland within seven months. I don't think you can. He has to do a


lot of smoke and mirrors to make it look like he's taking it seriously.


It's clear that a no result, although it removes the existential


threat to the British state for now, raises a whole lot of other issues


as well that have yet to be resolved. We've already talked about


the extra powers that will be default to Scotland. It's not


exactly clear what they will be. Labour and Conservative don't agree


on how much income tax will be devolved. We do know the timetable


as outlined by Gordon Brown. What about the detail?


Holyrood will already gained some new powers from the Scotland act of


2012, which will mean that in 2016 Edinburgh will have the power to


vary income tax by 10p and borrow more money. However there is


currently disagreement over how much further Westminster should go. The


Conservatives want to see Scotland given complete power over income tax


and possibly a share of VAT receipts. Labour would vary the


amount income tax can be changed from 10p to 15p as well as default


thing other areas such as housing benefit. The Liberal Democrats are


in favour of a federal United Kingdom and they would give Scotland


further control over taxation, including inheritance tax, capital


gains tax and income tax. However, as David Cameron indicated this


morning, it's not just Scotland that could see a power change. The Prime


Minister said he wants to see a fair and balanced settlement with only


English MPs being allowed to decide on English laws in Parliament.


Conservative MPs were vocal this morning, calling for more English


devolution. So was Nigel Farage. Labour's spokespeople were thin on


the ground. Eventually we got this from Ed Miliband. We will also meet


the desire for change across England, Wales and the whole of the


UK. Devolution is not just a good idea for Scotland and Wales, it is a


good idea for England and Northern Ireland, as it is already. It's also


the case, friends, that we must meet the first change in reforming the of


our country and who it works for. Gordon Brown only got a passing


mention in that speech. The Deputy Prime Minister was also pressing for


a new agreement for England and the rest of the UK. We need to address


this huge missing bit of the jigsaw, which is England. For far too long,


far too many decisions have been taken on by half of the towns,


villages, cities and counties of England by Westminster and Whitehall


and we need to release that grip of Westminster and Whitehall which has


stifled governments across England for too long. I see today is the


beginning of the process, not the end, where we reaffirm what unites


us. Nigel Farage has also been getting stuck into the debate this


morning, there's a surprise, demanding a better deal for


England. I'm sorry, quite honestly, the English taxpayer has been very


patient, very quiet through this. We spent as a nation ?1600 a head more


on every Scot than we do on every English person. The Barnett formula


is should be debated openly in the House of Commons. Let's get the


country involved. OK, let's talk to James Landale in


Downing Street. When was it decided that English devolution would now go


in tandem with Scottish devolution? I think it has been in the minds of


David Cameron and his advisers ever since they realise they have two say


something to try and shift the debate within the referendum. It is,


I have to say, Conservative policy, it was in the last manifesto so it


is nothing new for them. But I think this strategic decision to link


Scottish devolution with English devolution was the new idea, simply


because, on the one hand, it makes it more likely that it will happen


but also politically it makes it hugely difficult for the Labour


Party, and I think that would have been very attractive, not just to


David Cameron but also to George Osborne, who I believe has had his


hands all over the statement this morning. Crucially, because it now


puts the onus on the Labour Party to agree some kind of extra power for


English MPs, that means less power for Scottish MPs, and that means a


future Labour government would find it harder to get its legislation


through. So, a huge challenge for Ed Miliband in the months ahead, as all


the parties come together and they try to agree some kind of procedure,


some kind of rule that they can all agree with and have some draft


legislation by January, which is a very fast timetable that the Prime


Minister has said. Does Mr Cameron's concept of English


devolution involve any more than English votes for English laws?


Well, today he was very specific, he said... He also said the same would


be true in Northern Ireland and Wales. The key question is, what


exactly would they be voting on? There is a difference between an


indicative vote that allows English MPs to express their opinion, then


there is colourful example, English MPs voting on the detailed of the


legislation, maybe by setting up a special grand committee, and then


there is the other end of the spectrum, essentially them voting on


all English legislation entirely, effectively setting up an English


parliament. I don't think they will go down that route. They will have


to find a middle way some way that is enough to satisfy his Tory


critics but enough that is sellable to the Labour Party, ultimately. I


am joined now in the studio by Labour MP, Diane Abbott, she follows


me everywhere. And by the Conservative back venture, Bernard


Jenkin, in Westminster. Bernard, did the Prime Minister jumped the gun


and trash the British constitution on the basis of a rogue poll? I


don't think it's important. I don't know whether making these extra


promises at the last minute had any effect on the pole. It was not as


good a win as we wanted, and as a result of this whole exercise we do


have the whole British constitution in something of a state of flux. The


question is where we go from here. Would answering the West Lothian


question in the way the Prime Minister has indicated, a newish


votes for English laws, would that be enough for you on English


devolution? I don't think it will be enough for English MPs. The


principle should be, if we want the United Kingdom to survive, we have


to have the four components of the union treated the same. So what is


good for Scottish MPs in Holyrood has to be good for English MPs at


Westminster. We should be able to decide our only just lesion in


Westminster. The Mackay commission, which was set up to look at this,


was a bit watery on the subject, and that's not good enough. What we want


is to be able to control our own legislation in the same way as the


Scots controlled the legislation, the Welsh, and Northern Ireland.


What this envisages is a proper federal system, and the money has


got to be decided on an equal and fair basis, as well. Just before I


bring in Diane Abbott, can I just checked on a proper federal system?


With that mean we have a Prime Minister for the United Kingdom and


a First Minister for England? Yes. I see, quite radical change. You said


to me last night on the results programme, Scotland Decides, that


you thought the time would come for English votes for English laws, but


that would be right. My view, and it is a personal view, is it is not


intellectually coherent if the further devolution to Holyrood is


going to mean anything to continue to have Scottish MPs voting on


reserved matters. It is not your party bus like policy though, is it?


I am not sure what my party's policy is. We are very reluctant to see


Scottish MPs not allowed to vote, but the danger is if we don't arrive


with a deal with the Tories on this devolution settlement promised by


Gordon Brown before the general election, the real people who will


suffer will be the Labour Party in Scotland, because the SNP will be


running around saying look, we told you it was all meaningless. Bernard


Jenkin, if we had a First Minister Finland, as we have the Scotland and


Wales and Northern Ireland, would it have its own parliament and where


would it be? No, I think the two days a week you have a Jewish MPs


sitting as the English Parliament in the Palace of Westminster. Deciding


-- you have English MPs sitting as being this Parliament. Supposing we


devolve taxation powers to Scotland, are we seriously one day


to have another Labour Chancellor, who might be Scottish, in his or her


budget, setting out what the tax rates should be for people in


England, but not able to set his or her own tax rate in Scotland? This


is the West Lothian question getting more and more significant as more


and more powers are devolved. This is a very Tory tradition, that we


finish off other people's reforms that we opposed to start with. We


opposed the reform act in 1832, we finished it with 1867, all male


suffrage, and then suffrage for women later on. We opposed


devolution. Well, we have devolution in Scotland and Wales and Northern


Ireland now, we have to finish the job and have proper devolution in


England as well full stop now you are stealing the Liberal


Democrats's policy, which has always been in favour of this. I think the


liberal democrats should come along with us on this. Is there any sign,


Diane Abbott, that the Labour Party is thinking of a credible, serious,


radical devolution policy for England? To be quite honest, the


proposals we are talking about today were drawn up by Gordon Brown in the


heat of what appeared to be a losing referendum battle. It's called


panic. You can call it that, I couldn't possibly comment, but if


the Labour Party is seen to not deliver on what Gordon Brown


promised, we will pay a price. Bernard Jenkin, can I come back to


you in the final minute? Your proposal for a federation is


interesting but I propose to you that cannot be achieved in the


short-term, that is a massive redrawing of the British


constitution and would take years? Actually, we can organise the


English vote for English laws without any UK override through our


own standing orders and procedures. That could be done in a week. That


does not create a federation. The question as to whether we should


having this department and English ministers, that can evolve over


time, let's not do that a rush and let's think about that. But the


point is English votes for English laws has consequences for Whitehall.


How could you have English MPs determining English laws but not


able to hold accountable direct to them the ministers who are


implementing those policies? It is a nonsense. Final word, briefly,


Diane. Mo I respect Bernard Jenkin, but this is madness. Labour MPs are


trying to unite behind Ed Miliband, particularly when we find out what


our precise policies are. I am trying to save the union, because if


we don't have the competence of settlement across the United


Kingdom, Alex Salmond will be back having another row with Westminster


and he will have another referendum, we have one last chance to save the


union. I thought that just happened yesterday, but never mind, Bernard


Jenkin, thank you for joining us, and Diane Abbott as well. It was a


momentous night, not just in Scotland but for the whole of the


Kingdom. Here is a reminder of how the events of the last 24 hours


unfolded. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take Scotland's


future into Scotland's hands. The BBC's forecast now is that


Scotland has voted no to independence. CHEERING


No, 194,638. Scotland has, by majority, decided


not, at this stage, to become an independent country. I accept that


verdict of the people. DRAMATIC MUSIC people who are


disengaged from politics have turned out in large numbers.


Just as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs,


so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland


must have a bigger say over theirs. I will finish the Daily Politics


with Peter Hennessy. What an extraordinary 24 hours, we have


never lived through 24 hours like this. Yesterday at this time, we


were worried that the United Kingdom might be dissolved by this time on


Friday. It hasn't. We wake up, we find ourselves in this vast


constitutional building site without a plan, without even the sketchiest


blueprint, and what we really need is to pause and to think, and to


work out how to design something that fits all these multiplicity of


needs. It has to be a royal commission or a convention of some


kind. That doesn't meet the Gordon Brown timetable though, does it?


There is a kind of mania abroad, for a country that is supposed to be


phlegmatic and the mature is democracy in the world, we have gone


slightly bonkers. I know there are many flaws in our system, of course


you are a member of it, the House of Lords would be one that comes to


mind... You are too kind! I know that, but politicians, right, left


and centre, are they not being rather cavalier with something that


has evolved over the years and wake up with a good idea and want to rip


it apart? They are distilling their own frenzy, each one is feeding off


the other, it is time for a bit of calmness, reason and a bit of


careful R and D, both intellectual and political. I suppose what Gordon


Brown was talking about is not as easy to come by as he was implying,


but in the end that might be what needs to happen. You need eight


consensus for long-lasting constitutional change, otherwise it


won't insure. We have a genius, we Brits, for smart muddling through.


This is muddling through without the Smart. When I interviewed you for my


documentary, you were worried about the union now, but that fear in your


mind has gone away for now. Just now. I do worry if we squeak out of


the European Union in the next ten years, it will reopen the Scottish


question, because they will vote to stay in the EU. In ten years time, I


am not a pessimist, we could be out of the EU and without Scotland. We


have to be very careful how we tread. Peter Hennessy, thank you


very much, a pleasure to be with you.


Thanks to David Aaronovitch, Anne McElvoy,


I'll be back on BBC One this Sunday morning at 11.00am ,


when the Sunday Politics will be live from the Labour party


Download Subtitles