01/02/2014 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London. Can Scotland be truly

independent if it keeps the pound? David Cameron meets the President of

France. And a pause in the Syrian peace talks - but no pause in the

killing. My guests today are Mina al Oraibi of Asharq al Awsat, Agnes

Poirier of Marianne, Greg Katz of Associated Press and Polly Toynbee

of The Guardian. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, is a

Canadian whose own country could have split apart a few years ago

when Quebec voted narrowly not to choose independence. Ahead of

Scotland's vote on independence this September Mr Carney outlined the

pros and cons of Scotland retaining as its currency the pound sterling.

Does his intervention - however well received - scupper the case for

independence? What do you think of that? I don't think it's the

opposite. The organisation would have to take place. If people want

independence, they will get independence, but it is an

intervention designed to make them think again. Scotland has a slightly

bigger financial sector in relation to its size than we do, so it is

precarious. The Royal Bank of Scotland helped bring down, the

whole British economy. On the other hand, Alex Salmond has said, if we

keep within the envelope of borrowing that the Bank of England

prescribes to share your currency, it is our business to tax and spend

within that as long as we don't borrow too much. I think that is the

sort of compromise that will be available. You could imagine from an

English voter and an English politician point of view, they might

say Scottish people should join the euro. It is one of the issues that

gets people really involved in the debate. It is also part of the

conversations that have to happen before the referendum, issues of

practicalities. It is interesting, because Alex Salmond is saying, if

you try to control us through currency, we will withdraw from the

debt that we share with the rest of the UK. It is quite interesting to

see the arguments being formed around the benefits, keeping

Scotland within. Most people are unaware how economically significant

Scotland is. I think it is quite important for Scotland if the

referendum does not go to a yes vote, it almost elevates Scotland in

terms of people's thinking, it shows how important it is. One of the

things that happened in Canada is that although Q voted narrowly to

stay within Canada, the rest of Canada were so fed up they were

happy to see them go. Even though Mark Carney made his comments this

week, there were also new figures showing people are more likely to

vote yes, the latest figures are 30%. And the rest of Europe is

looking at it very anxiously, because so many of them have success

list groups. David Cameron is using exactly the same argument to get the

Scottish people to stay in the union that we do for Britain to stay in

the European union and somehow, he is deaf to our arguments that

Britain should stay in the European Union. We will come back to the

European Union in a moment. We know how this is seen in Madrid, because

they have separatist problems. Would France care or well, or even notice

of Scotland was independence? There has been a long history of

friendships between Scotland and France? We are dealing with a grand

hypothesis, but who believes Scotland will be independent Western

Mark we have to do this as if they will vote yes. They said before they

would want to join the European union, but if a new state wants to

join, they have to choose the single currency. I would not entirely rule

out Scotland sporting yes. Then forget about the pounds Eurozone.

It is not that much of a disaster, is it? If Scotland try to go it on

its own with its own currency, it would lose all its financial

services, so I agree that the euro is a good option. I don't think this

scupper is the argument at all. We understand the David Cameron

strategy and the Alistair Darling point of view, Mark Carney has shown

cards stop it seems to be getting closer, there are a lot of reasons

to think this will be a very emotional vote and it will not

simply be based on currencies. I would expect it to be close, that

may be journalistic wishful thinking. By September, it may well

be that David Cameron is looking like he's going to win the next

election. In which case, I think the Scots will turn around. The idea of

another Conservative government. They don't have Conservative MPs in

Scotland. They have one. Is that why it is smart for David Cameron not to

personalise this? He doesn't go up there at all. He had better stay

away. Britain and France, 100 years after the outbreak of the First

World War, actually have a lot in common - an imperial legacy, a

robust foreign policy and a strong sense of national identity. But

David Cameron and the French President Francois Hollande are

poles apart on everything from economic management and austerity to

the European Union. How far can they cooperate to change the EU? Or on

anything else? Hollande said it was not a priority, which is diplomatic

speak for get lost. Things are going very well, they met at a military

base, because they were going to talk about defence. I know it is not

a sexy subject, but it is going very well. We have less resources, so we

have to put our resources in common. How many aircraft carriers

do you need, can we share? Broadly similar objectives. Yes, because we

have similar objectives. The French are carrying operations in the

Central African Republic, we meet Britain in this. Strangely, I never

thought it was the Lancaster house agreement, I thought the British

Army and the French army are not going to incorporate very well, but

apparently it goes fantastically well. That is one tick, can we move

on to the rest? You have to have something empathy for Hollande, when

he says, how can we dictate the pace? I think he has a point. We all

want Britain to stay in Europe and we all want to reform Europe will

stop the European Commission should be elected, for instance. They are

going to have the next European elections in May, and nobody cares.

Europe is a fantastic idea, one that is worth fighting for, dying for,

even, but institutions need to be reformed. So why did he say it's not

a priority? Because you can see Cameron is a hostage to the mad

Eurosceptics in his party. He doesn't even believe it. He wants to

stay in Europe, but he has some lunatic sinners party applying

pressure. It is that, is he going to be elected again next year? Hollande

cannot agree on terms when he doesn't know. When you know a man

has problems back home, you take him down to the pub, so they did in that

way try to do some bonding. He didn't have a pint! I thought the

whole thing was a bit awkward, the British press was determined to

question the French president about aspects of his life he wasn't going

to talk about. The subtext of that was the British press was determined

to get some sort of reply on his personal questions. But there is no

way they are going to see eye to eye on any aspect of EU reform. Cameron

is starting a general election campaign at this point. The economic

data is giving him lots of reason for optimism and he is very much at

this point trying to appease the UKIP side.

If you look at the left of centre and right of centre votes, you have

a majority, so if Cameron can neutralise the UKIP vote, he has won

the majority he wants. The fact that Cameron is making it central to what

it needs for him to win an election is trying to get those UKIP boaters

on his side. The Lib Dems are absolutely against it, saying you

cannot imagine another coalition government working well if it is

between the Lib Dems and conservatives if the issue of Europe

is going to be some central. I think Cameron is making a point that the

referendum will be the choice of the British people. As Hollande is

saying, we have 27 members, you can't decide relations in the EU do

pending on what the British public thing. Exactly. This is a lunatic

game that has no connection with the real world whatsoever. Anywhere in

Europe now, if you held a referendum on the treaty, it would not pass,

because everybody is any budget minded mood at the moment, so no

government anywhere can afford to. The idea that Cameron on his own

will be negotiate a treaty, that 27 countries will re-negotiate and get

through all these referendums and then magically we will have an

improved EU the end of it, everybody knows it is nonsense. It is purely a

day without Eurosceptics press stop most of the press barons are not

even British and even lives in this country. They drive the

conversation. On that point, the Garage and ran a poll in September

about the disaffection of British people with politics, particularly

younger boaters. It showed that almost half the population, if you

ask them, what you associate with politics, they say angry or abroad.

Only 2% said inspired. Do you think people look at a lot of the stuff

that goes on in politics and say, that doesn't actually affect me. It

may be something we talk about in Westminster, but it doesn't affect

me. I think there is a disconnection with the mechanisms of Westminster,

but I think that's true in every country. This disaffection is

widespread in Europe. There is a sense that they are up there don't

understand what a hard time we have been having down here. The hard

right in that country has deflected that decisive action against

migrants, against the bullies people on benefits, to change the

conversation about the fact that the rich are still doing very well and

it is the middle and low earners that have really suffered. There is

a conflicted turmoil of emotions. You can say people are not

interested, but they just feel angry all the time that somehow

Westminster is not representing them. They have no idea what the

European Parliament does. That theme is true in the United States as

well. I read something that said if you are born after 1972 as an

American, you have spent your entire life living in a country where

people do not trust the government to do the right thing, so this

disaffection is a story of our times.

Yes, you have a consistent American approach of manipulating the truth

and not being forthcoming. The term credibility gap that was born, UCB

periods in American history, M Carter, Reagan and President Obama,

when people coalesce behind the leader and infuse them with magical

powers, but that inevitably leads to disillusionment. You can see that

with Obama at the moment. Is that true friends? Universal

suffrage is something that is quite exciting but if you look at the

participation turnout in France with the elections, for residents are

cosy, it was 87%. For Francois Hollande, it was 82%. -- President

Sarkozy. And it is 60 something in Britain. But your voting system,

that is what the Lib Dems tried to reform, and they made a miss of it.

But it is located. We vote for a man and a party. Perhaps we can make it

more exciting. Also, I think we should directly elect the head of

the European commission. Even having a European president, even if it is

just an honorary function. It is hard to get people excited about

European elections in this country. I think it will be some time before

people go out and vote with excitement about the EU president.

But there is an issue about British identity. This is part of the

conversation about Scotland and the EU. It does not get framed in that

context. It is much more about economics because people are

suffering from the economic consequences of what has the

happening. I think when people think of Europe or the EU, it is about the

Eurozone and how Britain has been affected. But these are important

elements of British identity. If the referendum goes to a yes, which

people did not think was going to happen but now people think is a

serious matter and could happen, and also the relationship with the EU. A

final point on this, Polly, about party belittlement ship. People do

not join political parties. Labour has a particular problem with the

unions, which is Ed Miliband has been trying to solve, having beaten

David Miliband as a result of this very system. Will that reconnect

people in any way to the Labour Party? The hope is for the Labour

Party to get more authentic members. Only 1% of people in this

country belong to parties at all. Labour's membership is bigger than

the Tories but they are both old and few. Labour has a peculiar

relationship with the unions were the unions sign up millions of

members nominally to be labour supporters without the members

having a clue. And so Labour is saying that that is corrupt and

people have to individually decide that they want to join. That means a

huge amount of money will be lost for Labour. But they will get, the

members they get from that will be authentic members, proper members.

And that is much more democratic. Labour could not go on with such a

corrupt system after the fiasco of the leadership. It was essential

that they clean this up. Not many people will notice that at least

they cannot dig at labour for being undemocratic any more. The Syrian

peace talks are not exactly a beacon of hope for the suffering people of

that region. They began in a week in which the president of the United

States delivered a state of the union address which some

commentators suggested amounted to a sign of American weakness on the

world stage. If the United States becoming more isolationist with

serious consequences for those like the people in Syria? Part of the

problem, as an outsider, is when you look at it, you want something to be

done but nobody really has a good plan. There is no plan for Syria. To

answer the first question, the US is becoming more isolationist. Moving

back to Syria, there is not a good plan but the plan on the table now,

which is to get the government and the opposition sitting at one table,

that has started, the train has left the station. The problem is to make

sure it gets to the next station. The second round talks are slated to

start in February. What is depressing is that both sides are

saying it will take months. Some people are saying a year. And the

problem is... The problem is that within that year, there is no call

for a cease-fire. Everybody says they should be but it is not

mandatory. Not only that, the confidence building measures that

were supposed to create a positive atmosphere for the talks have

failed. There were two met issues, lifting the siege of the city of

Homs, and actually getting food to 500 families that have lived for

over 18 months with absolutely no food, living in a dire position. The

plan was agreed by the Americans and Russians with the UN to get food

into the old city within the first few days of the talks. The

government did not allow that and still the talks continued. The

second issue was detainees. There are 2500 women and children that

were supposed to be released but that did not happen. The fact that

these measures failed on day one, the first round of talks have

finished with the only measure of success being that they actually

happened. It is difficult to understand why the Unitarian access

issue continues to fail to get people rallied around. And you were

there and he said that you think the United States has become more

isolated, but John Kerry is working with them? They are working together

because we have to have a process. It became talks about the talks,

which is what the Middle East process has been about for so long.

Summary people were drawing those parallels that it was disheartening.

Yes, they are involved in making sure that this happens and the

government from both sides have told them that they cannot walk away from

the table. It is mainly the government and the opposition,

trying to push the other sides to walk away for a political winner. I

believe the government and large parts of the opposition believe that

this can be resolved militarily. Until that happens, the stocks are a

cover. -- these talks. Where is President Obama's leverage in this?

Is him gauged on a political level? I do not think he is twisting arms

behind the scenes. -- is he engaged. And do not think he has a clear

vision of how the US would like to see this resolved. When the Russians

and Americans were able to reach this chemical agreement to remove

the weapons, it strengthened President Assad's position. It is

still the stated position of the US that they would like to see an

alternative government, the politics of this has been undermined and it

has been even more undermined by the radicalisation of factions of the

rebels. You have this integral of the conflict picture now if Obama

was relaxing -- you have this conflict and picture now and if

Obama was relaxing with his advisers, talking casually, they

would admit that they have no way forward. I'd agree. If you remember,

before the Russian intervention, we had these chemical weapons

arrangements, and there was this week were France and David Cameron

were going to go. It was a matter of 24 hours, troops would be going. And

nowhere are we? -- and now where our weak you make the worst thing is

that we have not managed to get humanitarian access. It is a

militarily stalemate. Fine. But think how worse it would have been

if the Brits and Americans have started bombing, as if that would

have helped in any way. It certainly would not have led to talks and

would be no question of disarmament. Who knows, as you say, whether this

is going to go anywhere, but we would not even be here. The

extraordinary thing is that a weak British opposition, was actually the

party that prevented the West doing that. But is that also because, to

return to what you said earlier, voters are in an angry mood. They

are not in a mood to get involved in a foreign adventure with unforeseen

consequences. And quite rightly. They look at the opposition. If it

was clear-cut, in rebellion against Assad, but when they see the extent

to which there are these different groups, a civil war going on within

the anti-Assad lot, who are we supporting? And do we know that it

will be better at the end? You can only intervene if you're clear that

you will make things that. Is clear to most people in Britain that it

would have made things worse. Is this container for? You are talking

about making a better but it could get worse. It is very difficult to

contain. -- is this containable. Iraq in the Lamont is moving between

Syria and Iraq to a certain extent. -- Al-Qaeda in the Levant. It is

clear that these gluttons control large points and the aerial bombing

has two large part stopped. If you look at the conversation here, we're

scared of the terrorists and radicals and maybe Assad is the

devil you know. These conversations work to the benefit of the

government and they have been able to frame the narrative. What Geneva

did was allow the presenters of Assad's government to be talking on

television constantly, giving a narrative after they had been frozen

out. Politically, they have the upper hand. That is it for this

week. We're back next week at the same time. You can comment on the

programme on Twitter: Vicky for watching. -- thank you for watching.

It looks as though we are storming into February, all systems go with

the jet stream sending a stormy weather. -- sending us. So much rain

in the last 24 hours, but the good news is that tomorrow will be

better. The wind