25/09/2014 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron has

said the UK is ready to play its part in fighting Islamic state. The

cabinet is meeting shortly to plan for air strikes against IS in Iraq,

and Parliament has been recalled. We will have the latest. The Labour

conference is over for another year, and the party says it is within

touching distance of power. Critics say the policies don't stand up to

scrutiny. We will be looking at what Ed Miliband will offer the voters.

The Yes campaign lost the referendum but there are signs that the 45% of

voters who backed it have not given up, so how long will it really be

before the question is asked again? There is no limit to the talent of

this young European team. Nigel Farage is praising Europe, its golf

team anyway. He also thinks the vote on Iraq has been scheduled to

upstage his party conference. We will be talking to UKIP alive. All

that in the next hour, with us for the whole programme today, Phil

Collins. He writes for the times but he used to write speeches for Tony

Blair, remember him? Phil's top tip for public speaking is to avoid

cliches, at the end of the day, going forward from here, I would

literally like to welcome you to the show. Thank you. After flying back

from the United Nations in New York overnight, David Cameron is chairing

a Cabinet meeting, a war cabinet meeting, in all but name. Following

a seven hour emergency debate in the House of Commons, the vote at the

end of it looks a cure, with both Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg signed up.

-- looks secure. UK action will be limited with Labour ruling out

extending the strikes to Syria. In a moment, we will speak to Alex

Forsyth in Downing Street, but first, David Cameron speaking to the

UN overnight. So we have a clear basis in international law for

action, and we have a need to act in our own national interest to protect

our people and our society. So it is right that Britain should now move

to a new phase of action. I am, therefore, recalling the British

Parliament on Friday to secure approval for the United Kingdom to

take part in international air strikes against ISIL in Iraq. Our

correspondence, Alex Forsyth, is outside number ten. Tell us exactly

how this is going to be constructive tomorrow, what will the choreography

B of this debate? As you say, in the next hour we are expecting ministers

to meet here at Downing Street to discuss, we presume, the wording of

the motion that will then be put before Parliament. David Cameron

will open the debate, it will last for some seven hours tomorrow

morning, and then there will be a closing speech from the Deputy Prime

Minister, Nick Clegg, and at that point MPs will of course vote. The

last time Parliament was recalled for something like this was last

year, when David Cameron tried to get the backing of Parliament for

the intervention in Syria. He failed similarly, he has been gathering

support before he even started to consider putting this motion forward

this time. So the vote looks pretty secure. There may of course be some

backbench MPs who are not happy or who have questions, but what's

interesting is the way we expect that motion to be framed, which is

very focused, limited, talking specifically about Britain joining

air strikes in Iraq and not Syria. That has been done because David

Cameron will be worried that he could not get support from all his

backbenchers, and also from the Labour Party and possibly coalition

partners. But he has also been criticised on the other side for

being slow, in some people's minds, for actually acting. He has had to

consider this carefully because all over this debate the shadows of the

previous conflicts of Iraq in and Afghanistan. After the Syrian defeat

last year, there is a sense that there is very little public appetite

or indeed in Parliament for Britain getting sucked into another

long-running, messy complex situation in the Middle East. So

David Cameron is conscious of fact and punch is of the fact that he

needs to be able to secure -- conscious of the fact that he needs

to be able to secure support this time. Of course, he is well behind,

because those US air strikes have already been going on in Iraq for

some time, and indeed in Syria, and the intervention written is

discussing is, to all intents and purposes, fairly limited. But by

tomorrow evening, Britain will be at war. It certainly looks that way, we

have had all three party leaders coming out to support this idea so

we could mobilise fairly quickly to send RAF planes out, but what they

are being very careful to say is that they are only talking about

Iraq, and not talking about combat troops on the ground, because there

really is no sense there is any public desire for that, and they

have been cleared to say that if it came to that, or the biggest

question of what happens about Syria, it would have to go back

before Parliament to get the approval of MPs before any further

action was taken. We are joined by the Conservative MP, James Gray. He

is in our Westminster studio, and by Chris nylon from stop the war

organisation. He is organising a protest this evening. As I have

said, it is almost certain now that the UK will deploy military strikes

against IS targets in Iraq. Wider you not support such a mission? Melo

I think it is just extraordinary that three years after the last

catastrophic intervention in Iraq ended, this will be the fourth major

attack that Britain has been involved in in the last 13 years.

The other ones have ended in absolute disaster. Are we saying we

are leading nothing from history, nothing from those experiences? It

is not just that we are in danger of repeating the same mistakes, but

every time we launch another these assaults, we plunge the region

further and further into chaos and disarray. Look at the state of the

Middle East now, 13 years after the start of the war on terror. It is

catastrophic, and we have been part of creating that situation. But are

you saying because of what happened, the intervention in Iraq, Britain

should never again be involved in any sort of intervention, be it

humanitarian or military? That is another question. I think all the

military interventions we have been involved in in the last 13 years

have been disastrous, and I don't think we should be doing the same

thing again. That is not to say there aren't things that can be

done, but the idea that the only thing that can be done in this

situation is aerial bombardment on Iraq is absurd. How would you stop

IS rebels taking over a country and also beheading hostages that have

come from this country, America and France? One thing I would do is to

stop arming the countries that have funded ISIS. Also, I would get

involved in some aid and investment into a country that we ourselves

have damaged irreparably. James Gray, let's get your response to

that, why is the UK almost definitely now going to be launching

air strikes in a region of the country where according to Chris Nye

and lots of other people have been disastrous in the past? Chris and

others will argue against any warfare in the world, but these

people, ISIL, are the most brutal people in the history of the Middle

East, and it is important we should hit them hard where ever they be.

These pacifists are just wrong. I strongly support the proposal we

should go against ISIS, where ever they may be, and I strongly support

the fact Parliament has been recalled tomorrow to discuss it. My

own particular line is that I think David Cameron should have acted

sooner and swifter under the authority he has as Prime Minister,

rather than asking for a vote. Do you think it is unnecessary to have

this vote, and if it is within his powers and remit, he should have

just joined the US-led strikes and some of the other players in the

region and gone ahead? It is not only unnecessary, it means it is

hampering comet we have to come back to Parliament for a vote on every

single matter. ISIS are both in Syria and Iraq. Not hitting Syria

because he lost a vote on at this time last year is probably the wrong

thing to be. We need to hit these guys wherever they may be, if they

hit Turkey, we hit them there probably. Tying ourselves in knots

because of the need to get a Commons vote is quite wrong. The Prime

Minister should use his authority, as a leader, as a statesman, he

should be taking us to war if that is the right thing to do to stop

these brutal murders. What is your political settlement for after the

air strikes, let's said IS is contained and pushed back to Syria,

what would be your political settlement for the region? It has to

be a matter for the government of Iraq, I am very hopeful they can

ring to the three sides. It won't be easy, and bring in the UAE and

Jordan and other people trying to achieve that. Let me come to Phil

Collins, to take up James Gray's point that this was unnecessary to

have this vote, do you think it sets a dangerous precedent that every

time there will be some decision taken on military action, Parliament

will have today record? Reign I think it has been said, I think it

will happen every time. It is not a bad thing reign in a democracy to

have a parliamentary vote on going to war.

I think, Chris, I take your points, but you have to recognise there is a

very signal difference from the last Iraq intervention, which is to say

the Iraqi government has requested our help. But not a big difference

from Afghanistan, where we were told military strikes would get rid of

the Taliban, and actually what has happened is that Alabama, 13 years

later, is stronger than it was women first went in. Green there is

another very important difference, we have seen green there is another

very important difference, we have seen British people in video clips

in peril. You are essentially saying right now we do nothing. I am not

saying that at all. What I am saying is if we know this intervention

takes place it will make matters worse, because history tells us

that. They have all ended in disaster. Give me an example of a

similar the literary intervention that has done anything other than

actually increase bitterness... My very point is that they are not

similar. We were told exactly the same things before the attack on

Afghanistan, that we needed to wipe these people out and degrade them.

Green do you not think that is true? No, I don't think we can deal with

these situations thousands of miles away by bombing people. A bunch of

bandits are attempting to claim the mantle of a state and you are

essentially saying do nothing. No, I am saying I don't want to kill

innocent civilians because it will make things worse. We have got

people coming across the border from Syria to Turkey, they are getting

ever closer to European shores, in that sense. If you left them

unchecked, what do you think would happen? Look at the situation back

in 2001. The problem with terrorism was located in Pakistan and one or

two other areas, now it is spreading around the world, which is what this

action will do, deepen the problem. A recruiting sergeant for different

jihadi groups, which we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now we

are seeing it across this region of the Middle East, perhaps this is not

the right strategy? It was the wrong strategy in Afghanistan, we should

not have been there for eight to ten years, we should have gone in and

hit Al-Qaeda very hard, taken out Osama bin Lardner and got out again.

That that is what we should do, with IS, destroy them. The Pasha fist --

the pacifist approach to say was bad and we should not do them, it would

consign Britain to the backwaters. We must get out there and do the

right thing. These brutal people are beheading children because they

won't denounce Christ. These are awful people and we must stamp out

from this world, the only way to do that is by military force. Do you

think you will be decades before this issue is resolved, which is

what President Obama has said? But we will not be responsible for that.

That will be for the government of Iraq. But isn't that the problem,

that when British support and American sport has pulled out of

regions like Afghanistan for example, all that happens is those

extremists comeback in? If they come back end, we will come back too.

Just sitting in Afghanistan, for eight to ten years, it is quite the

wrong thing to do. We could not rebuild the state, and we can not do

that in Iraq either. It is a job for the neighbouring Arab states too.

Our job is to take out the bad guys and then leave again. What about

boots on the ground? There has been equipped by quite a fume military

commander saying it will have to be boots on the ground in order to

defeat ISIS rather than contain them -- quite a few. The notion of

sending in a brigade of infantry, tanks and so on, that is completely

absurd. We would not possibly want to do that. I think if we can

destroy these people from the air, and my goodness, the force America

are unleashing is terrifying to see, let's destroy them from the air and

leave it to the new Iraqi government and Iran come for example, who are

looking quite helpful, to put the whole thing together again.

Is it sustainable to say that Labour will support air strike, not in

Syria when people say unless you attack both, it will not work? Not

over time but there was a clear difference, the Iraqi government is

legitimate and want someone to negotiate and talk with them whereas

in Serbia that was not true and you were working in a vacuum with no

opposition. There is a difference and we have requests from the Iraqi

government for help. In the end, it will not last because the murderous

bandits of Islamic State will not observe that distinction and they

are spreading. Thank you both very much.

So the Red Flag has been sung and Labour has packed up its party

Yesterday saw some rousing speeches in Manchester from the likes

of Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham and Harriet Harman told delegates

the party was in touching distance of power.

A lot of the attention has been on the things Ed Miliband forgot to

mention in his speech, like the deficit and immigration.

But they also told us quite a lot about their policies going

His spoke for a 66 minutes without notes and famously missed out on a

couple of important passages so this time we were letting cheat a little

bit. The Health Service takes centre stage, including a promise for more

NHS staff, funded partly by a mansion tax on homes over ?2 million

as well as a levy on tobacco companies and a crack down on tax

avoidance. There is a pledge to increase the minimum wage to ?8 by

2020 and Police Commissioners will be given marching orders, as will

the migration cap. 16 and 17-year-olds will have the vote and

he reiterated the promise to build 200,000 homes a year by 2020. Less

popular with delegates was a plan to limit the rise in child benefit to

1% for the first two years of the parliament. This popular with the

Shadow Cabinet was a plan to cut the wages of ministers by 5% and freeze

them until Labour has achieved its promise to balance the books.

And we're joined now from Leicester by the

Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Jon Ashworth and from our Westminster

studio by the Conservative Party Chairman, Grant Shapps.

Welcome. John Ashworth, let us pick up on the deficit. How can Labour

bring it down? Ed Miliband has a good grace to admit he forgot those

lines but what we did here was Ed Balls saying we have a plan to

reduce the deficit and balance the books when it comes to current

spending and no manifesto commitment that we will make will be paid for

by borrowing, we will cost every single commitment that we put in

this manifesto so that was in his speech. How can you bring down

borrowing? And the deficit? If you win next year? Over the next eight

months we will outline further plans on the deficit and it must wait for

the Autumn statement from the Chancellor and the budget for next

year as well because we can see the expect picture but the key thing was

we were seeing no commitment will be paid for by borrowing and I wonder

if Grant Shapps can make the same promise? That is not capital

spending, you'll give yourself room to manoeuvre on that soon you could

borrow to invest? No commitment in the manifesto will be paid for the

Berlin, every single commitment this week is funded. The commitment to

increasing number of doctors and nurses in the NHS will be paid for

partly by the mansion tax and other measures so those are the policies

we were outlining and they will be costed, not paid for by borrowing

and I wonder if the Tories can say that? Let us look at the Tories,

Grant Shapps, how can the deficit -- how is the target cutting going? We

know that we inherited a deficit that McGrath I know, I know! You can

tell me because we know the figures, how is it going? Don't take it one

month at a time. By the time of the next election we can go into that

saying we have halved the deficit. What Labour says is they will keep

within whatever the budget rules are and they mention only the current

spending and not the structural part, that is the other money, and

the did not say they would make that by banging up taxes, taxing the

pension and the family home, what they call goods like cigarettes. The

point is, the only way they can balance this is the same old way

from Labour, more taxes and spending. We will come to that. I

want to clarify, so far, borrowing has been ?2.6 billion higher than

last year, you are not on target to cut the deficit in the way that

George Osborne claimed and it is not easy, even with all of your talk

about austerity, to balance these books? It is not. We have seen a

very significant figure, more than one third off, and we shall go into

the election doing even better but the job is not done by giving the

keys back to the people who crashed the economy and letting them borrow

and tax all over again. Before they have even sorted out the last mess,

and that does represent the biggest risk to the economy. How can you do

this? More taxes? That is what we have heard. A mansion tax and a

higher top rate. You want a higher minimum wage for businesses. Where

are these cuts? The spending cuts in public borrowing? Or is this all

from tax rises? It is true we have said we will increase the tax for

millionaires, which grant shops has cut back, and also the mansion tax.

-- Grant Shapps. In Hertfordshire, he lives there, and over the last

five years, there are 133 houses sold and only three of them went for

over ?2 million, so the vast majority of homes don't even go for

that. Is this all going to be about tax rises? Well, there's the lead

roles said we would have to freeze or cap child benefit at 1%. That

rings in a few hundred million. That is not the sort of policy that goes

down well at Labour Party Conference is but Ed Balls also said we would

cut ministerial pay, I do not know if that is something Grant Shapps is

prepared to sign up to. We have to outline further policies but we must

wait and see the Autumn Statement to see what the fiscal position is. Let

us go to the mansion tax. How many houses will be affected by this? And

what will the average cost be? We think we can raise ?1.2 billion or

so from this. How many houses? We will have to look at the details and

we shall have some consultation on this. We think we can raise about

?1.2 billion for the National Health Service. I do not understand how

this will work, how can you value the zones? ?2 million homes that

were bought at that price or houses that have risen in value since they

were bought 20 years ago? This is what we have to work on. How do you

know you will get this much money? If you have not even worked out the

basic details? We think we will get ?1.2 billion but these are good

questions, which is why we think the Office for Budget Responsibility

should test all of the opposition policies so that when people come to

making decisions at the General Election, they will know whether

those policies add up. That is something that the Tory party are

not alone in custody, I do not know what they are scared of but if they

were prepared to do that, we could look into this and have thus laid

out. Grant Shapps, what is your reaction to the mansion tax? You

have always been against this but what is wrong with people who either

have recently bought or own ?2 million homes paying a percentage

and property tax quiz night he has let the cat out of the bag, they

have not thought this through. The amount of money required to revalue

homes, a process you would have to go through in advance, costs ?400.

There is already a cost involved before you start to get anybody.

Some of his colleagues have suggested it would affect homes that

come down to only ?400,000, that would be in the North as well, and

John has let... High with that the? They have talked about how much they

want to raise from this and there is doubt is whether it would raise

that. -- how would that we. In that clip, the discussions you are

having, that's it everything you need to know about Ed Miliband and

the Labour Party, they got us in this mess, they have not worked out

any long-term plan and what they are coming up with is clutching at

straws, they didn't mention that one of the new taxes they want to

introduce will effectively tax people's pensions, ordinary people

watching this programme will have higher pension tax and higher home

tax and they will be back to borrowing and spending. Is that

true? I will not take lessons from Grant Shapps... Is that true? Is a

tax on people's pensions? I do not accept that. That is exactly what

was announced. You have been putting a silly messages saying Labour will

tax family homes, and in your village, only three houses... You

have said that. Is it true about the tax on pensions? No! I do not know

what he is talking about. Scare stories. Why doesn't he say, we will

cost all the opposition parties. So that people can be confident that

those party manifestoes have been costed. It is a very reasonable

request. Why can't that happened? It is for the Labour Party dissenter

policies. Why can't the OBR that those policies? Because that

institution independently looks at the budgets of government, that is

the point. What are you frightened of? They do not cost Conservative

policy. Just government policies. Some of the other things. Where do

you stand on the proposal to impose a levy on tobacco companies? Argue

against that? That is absolutely fine to talk about those proposals

for taxing things like tobacco. You would agree? I would argue that

those plans do not stack up. John was very confused about introducing

the tax and pensions, they have, they talk about raising money

through pension funds meaning pensions will be worth less, just as

when Gordon Brown raided those pensions in Europe at the time, they

are going to do that again. And the only thing I was tweeting was how

extraordinary it was to have the Labour leader who forgot to mention

the most important issue facing this country. The deficit that was

created by them. Before we let you add to that point, it is clear you

are against the mansion tax, not the proposal to impose a levy on the

profits of tobacco companies. Are you ending tax relief which allows

hedge fund is to avoid paying tax? This is where you end up taxing

ordinarily pensions? You are against that? You will fall into the trap of

being on the side of the wealthy and millionaires. You're against the top

rate of tax and mansion tax? The tax relief or head funds. You'll be

accused of being on the side of the few? We have tightened up all manner

of loopholes and we are bringing in more money from the wealthiest

people in this country. Secondly, it is not the case that Labour are

doing these things and it will not hit ordinary people, it will. And we

have made sure that 25 million people in this country, including

people on minimum wage, who pay one third of the tax paid when Labour

was in power, are paying far less tax so we either people on the side

of ordinary hard-working taxpayers. And for Labour, adding nearly

bankrupted this country, to ask us to do the same thing again is

asking... You can have the final word, about those tweets? You will

pay more VAT when you promise you want but up VAT, they have had tax

credits cut and you promised they would not and many disabled and

foldable people pay the bedroom tax, that very pernicious tax and you

have given greater tax cuts to millionaires. We will have to leave

it there. Gentleman... Gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Thank you

both very much. Are you suffering

from withdrawal symptoms now that Because UKIP begins its annual

gathering today in Doncaster. Whatever can have led them to decide

to hold their conference in Nigel Farage has been talking

about his position on plans for air strikes in Iraq, but he's

made one other attention-grabbing I am Nigel Farage and I love you. ,

the food, the excellent transport, the greatest golfers in the world.

The Ryder Cup is upon us and here are my reasons why everybody should

get kind Europe. There is no, no, no, no limit to the

talent of this European team. So, come on you lot, swing for Europe,

your continent. Goodness. That was Nigel Farage on

the fairway and joining us from consulate, UKIP's deputy leader,

Susan Evans. That was for Paddy Power, an online gambling adverts.

Why? I have no idea, this is the first I have heard of it. Your

reaction? I suppose as he says, UKIP has never been against Europe, just

against the EU. Why do it for Paddy Power, was a paid? I have no idea,

I'm afraid. We will find out later on. Do you agree with your leader

that the Prime Minister recalling Parliament for tomorrow is a cynical

ploy to detract attention from your party conference? I do, Private eye

hit the nail on head that the threat level had been raised from

substantial Boris to severe Farage. Now on the day the UKIP party

starts, he does something that several people have been calling him

to do the Whigs, recall Parliament to try to sort out the problem of

this barbaric death cult in Iraq and Syria. Surely that is at the

forefront of his mind? Surely an important debate on Britain joining

air strikes against, as you say, barbaric people in IS is really more

important than anything else at the moment whenever he had decided to

recall Parliament? Indeed, I totally agree and it has been very important

for weeks. When we were asking for a recall of Parliament weeks ago when

it first came to light, Cameron said no and he stayed in his wet suit on

the beach in Cornwall. I think it is a cynical ploy, I'm afraid. As James

Gray said earlier, this recall is unnecessary. Cameron was at the UN

last night saying Britain was prepared to join air strikes, he has

made his mind up, there is no need for him to go to Parliament. What do

you think, do you think it is a cynical ploy? I think the self

absorption that the finalist is thinking of the UKIP conference when

he is recalling Parliament to think about air strikes is bizarre. Do you

not think it is the session at the United Nations that figured quite

large? I think it has nothing to do with the UKIP conference. Let's look

at the by-elections coming up, how would you rate your chances of

winning either/or birth? I think obviously we have a very, very good

chance in Clacton. I was at a public meeting the last night and the

audience was absolutely 100% behind UKIP. Interestingly, Nigel asked

them to fill up their hands if they were members, actually he said put

up your hands if you are not a member and 90% of the audience put

their hands up, so it is not just the dedicated UKIP people at that

meeting last night. Hayward and Middleton is interesting. Labour are

doing so much in the wake of the Rotherham affair, they are doing so

much worse, people lined the doubly disappointed with Labour. Listening

to the arguments on your programme, I think Labour has descended once

again in a party more interested in class warfare than it is about doing

its best for Britain. Nigel Farage said I want to give millions of

ordinary people in this country the opportunity to live a better life

and do better. What is the tax regime that UKIP will put forward in

its election manifesto? First and foremost, we will take everyone out

on the minimum wage out of tax altogether. If a wage is deemed to

be the minimum, why should it be taxed? The other issue is to raise

the 40% threshold of tax and stop it is lower now than clear micro the

one thing we can do to improve inward investment from international

countries is to cut taxes. The tax rate was misunderstood, it was

combined with national insurance and we did not get that message across,

so it is going. So it will be a flat rate of 40% for the highest owners?

Yes, Labour keeps going on about tax cuts for millionaire 's but they are

paying more tax than they ever were under a Labour government and as a

result become tree is not getting -- the country is not getting the MS

would it deserves. I I grew up close to Hayward and

Middlewood. The message will work there very well. I suspect it won't

work well enough to win but they are certainly competitive, no doubt.

What about the policies on things like tax, if you are going to cut it

to the 40p top rate of tax, there would also be cut in public

spending, will those appeal to constituents where? UKIP take the

worst of the two main parties, Labour always burning too much and

conservatives desperate for tax cuts. The thing about UKIP's

policies is that public spending will go down naturally as we

introduce our policies. Clearly one of the main issues... By how much

would it go down? If you are controlling your borders and fewer

people are coming into the country and you are controlling the sort of

people who come in, like the 190 countries around the world that have

controlled immigration policies, then you are only encouraging in

people who can pay their way, so you are cutting costs on housing,

benefits, schooling, health. Our manifesto is being costed at the

moment, and ours really is going to be costed. You will have to pay for

a lot if you are to raise the tax threshold for low income families,

and scrapping inheritance tax. How will you meet those costs? For a

start, our fundamental concept is to leave the European Union, we will

also be looking at smaller sums, I am making a welfare speech to

conference on Friday. One of the first things we will be doing is

stopping millions of pounds being paid in child benefit to children

that don't even live in Britain. There are lots of ways that we will

be making cuts and announcing them in the next few days. Thank you very

much. While we have been on-air, viewers in Scotland have been

watching First Minister's Questions from Holyrood but they have just

joined us. It was the first time Alex and has been back in the

chamber since announcing he is to stand down as First Minister. I

think there is an expectation after the referendum, a way to canvas,

that given the comments for example not of Gladstone but certainly of

Gordon Brown, what he was espousing was home rule is close to federalism

as it possibly can be, then people want to see a genuine powerhouse

parliament coming from the steps being taken at Westminster, rather

than the insipid group of proposals that were published last spring. So

in terms of securing the jobs test for a powerhouse parliament, then I

shall be standing shoulder to shoulder with William Gladstone,

Gordon Brown and Willie Rennie. That was Alex Salmond, speaking at

Holyrood short while ago. They may have lost the referendum, but those

who voted for independence last week are showing no sign of backing down

in the demand for autonomy. A Facebook campaign group, called we

are the 45%, in reference to the proportion of people who voted in

favour of Scotland leaving the union, has been set up by those

determined to keep the dream of independence alive. We are joined

down the line from Glasgow by one such person, the former MSP, Tommy

Sheridan. Welcome back to the Daily Politics. As you know, 55% of Scots

voted to stay part of the union, do you accept the result? Of course, it

is a democratic election, it was interfered with unfortunately by a

lot of big businesses who tried to bully and intimidate people, and

obviously the BBC played its part. But 45% of people voted yes. The

last-minute intervention that should have broken all conventions and

rules, but again the BBC and others never really pointed that out was

the promise on the back of a fag packet that Scotland would get all

of these new powers. We were told it would happen on the 19th of

September. I think it is the 24th today and we are still to see them.

We will come on to the promises that were made. You include the BBC, in

terms of scaring and intimidating people, our business is not entitled

to have an opinion and have their say? Everyone is entitled. It is

just you did not like what they said. They are not entitled to

threaten people would lose their jobs if they voted yes, which is

what businesses did, and that is a disgrace, and you guys in the media

should have done more to point that out. This was a democratic and

apparently free election. You gave, for instance, coverage to the

Deutsche Bank, who said if we voted yes they would bring in a new great

oppression, a lot of nonsense, but you guys gave it coverage. I think

we have to accept that coverage of the referendum did not cover the BBC

in glory. I hope you will accept that, I am not having a go at you

personally, but the BBC as an institution backed up written, that

is what they did. You seem to be laying the blame for the fact you

did not win that. Let's come to the issue of independence, when do you

think it will be revisited? I hope in 2020, I hope next May we will

have a massive majority for the pro-independence parties at the

general election. I think one of the clear outcomes of this referendum is

that not only are the blue Tories finished in Scotland, but the red

Tories are finished in Scotland. Labour could have celebrated and

hugged with all of the Tory friends last Friday, but it was a pyrrhic

big three. They should look that up. -- pyrrhic victory for stock they

have lost Glasgow, Dundee, West Dunbartonshire they have lost

traditional Labour areas who will never vote Labour again. You say

that, you are right of course, those Labour heartlands were lost in that

independence referendum. Do you think he is right that there could

be, and in his mind should be, another vote for independence in

2020, and that Labour has lost those heartlands like Dundee and Glasgow

forever? I don't think they have lost them for ever, but I think

there is a severe threat to Labour in Scotland. That is one of the

outcomes and Labour people are very concerned about that. Whether there

will be another referendum that quickly, I doubt. I suspect the

argument for independence will get weaker as Scotland get older and the

oil but it is perfectly reasonable to complain for another -- to

campaign for another referendum. As if the Scottish people are Jutes who

see what is on the telly and read what is the paper and do as they

told is really patronising. Everyone did say it was amazing to see so

many people engaged in the debate on both sides. When it comes to the

negotiation with UK parties over reform,