:00:02. > :00:07.killed more than 100,000 people here. The Government's inability to
:00:07. > :00:11.cope with the disaster was, people tell you, the wake-up call for him,
:00:11. > :00:16.alerting him to the country's desperate need for development.
:00:16. > :00:20.That means putting Burma's huge wealth in Jade, precious stones,
:00:20. > :00:24.timber, oil and gas to a use other than just making the generals rich
:00:24. > :00:31.and this is where the election of Aung San Suu Kyi fits into the
:00:31. > :00:35.Government's plans. The currency here is being floated from today to
:00:35. > :00:39.encourage foreign investment. Now that Aung San Suu Kyi can enter
:00:39. > :00:47.Parliament, the government hopes that sanctions will be lifted. The
:00:47. > :00:50.European Union is to debate the issue later this month.
:00:50. > :00:55.At a party in Rangoon, I'm introduced to people by name and
:00:55. > :00:59.then bit number of years they were sentenced to jail. This is the
:00:59. > :01:03.elite of the generation of 1988, the revolt that started the
:01:03. > :01:11.campaign for democracy and which launched Aung San Suu Kyi. You were
:01:11. > :01:17.sentenced to 55 years? Yes. This lady here? And you too for 55
:01:17. > :01:22.years? 65 years. Between them they spent hundreds of years in jail and
:01:22. > :01:28.most were released just years ago. What do they expect of the
:01:28. > :01:32.international community now? This man served 12 years in prison.
:01:32. > :01:35.TRANSLATION: The European Union should look at the true situation
:01:35. > :01:39.here and force the government to implement the reform process and
:01:39. > :01:44.bring about a better government which is in the interest of the
:01:44. > :01:48.better people. Jimmy spent 15 years in jail.
:01:48. > :01:52.TRANSLATION: I don't agree with lifting sanctions. Partial lifting
:01:52. > :01:58.would be OK, but only after the remaining political prisoners have
:01:58. > :02:03.been released and ethnic conflicts have ended. Only when the true
:02:03. > :02:13.national reconciliation and the constitution has been amended to
:02:13. > :02:15.
:02:15. > :02:21.allow full democracy, only then For now, there's rejoicing in Burma
:02:21. > :02:25.that there has been a genuine political break through here. The
:02:25. > :02:30.country's opposition party and their leader now have a voice in
:02:30. > :02:40.Parliamentment -- Parliament. These people now hope that the momentum
:02:40. > :02:45.
:02:45. > :02:50.will keep going and will bring Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: The
:02:50. > :02:55.Government is forced into a U-turn on accepting anonymous admissions
:02:55. > :03:00.to its consultation on the independence referendum. And does
:03:00. > :03:05.the Conservative and Unionist Party still fully back the Union? Or are
:03:05. > :03:08.England's Tories increasingly attracted to the electoral
:03:08. > :03:12.advantages Scottish independence might bring them? Hello, good
:03:12. > :03:16.evening. It's official, anonymous contributions will not count. If
:03:16. > :03:19.you want to have your say on how and when the referendum on
:03:19. > :03:23.independence happens, then you'll have to supply your full name at
:03:23. > :03:27.the very least. The condition probably doesn't sound that
:03:27. > :03:31.remarkable and it wouldn't be, except that the Scottish government
:03:31. > :03:37.only imposed it today, after Labour accused them of trying to rig the
:03:37. > :03:42.consultation. The UK Government said it never accepted anonymous
:03:42. > :03:46.contributions to its rival consultation.
:03:47. > :03:52.My consultation's better than yours. That seems to sum up this latest
:03:52. > :03:57.spat. It goes a bit like this: Over the weekend, the UK Government says
:03:57. > :04:02.responses to its consultation were heavily in favour of a referendum
:04:02. > :04:06.held before Autumn 2014. The Scottish Government's preferred
:04:06. > :04:12.date. And for good measure the UK Government wasn't accepting
:04:12. > :04:19.anonymous or multiple contributions. Aha, but the Scottish Government's
:04:19. > :04:23.consultation was accepting anonymous contributions. The point
:04:23. > :04:27.I'm making and this is clear, I am making that accusation that the SNP
:04:27. > :04:31.are looking like they're trying to rig this referendum. I find it
:04:31. > :04:35.absolutely disgusting that the good people of Scotland who are entering
:04:35. > :04:38.honestly into this consultation are being talked down and having their
:04:38. > :04:47.entries minimised and diminished in such a crass way by the Labour
:04:47. > :04:50.Party. The launch today you're all very welcome to the document.
:04:50. > :04:56.the Scottish Government said anonymous responses wouldn't be
:04:56. > :05:02.accepted after all. And in any case, they said only a small proportion
:05:02. > :05:10.of responses had been anonymous in the first place. Out of nearly
:05:10. > :05:18.12,000 submissions 414 or 3.5% were from anonymous contribute torz. No
:05:18. > :05:22.surprises for guessing their response to the move, cries of U-
:05:22. > :05:27.turn, embarrassment, humiliation. I'm joined live from Edinburgh by
:05:27. > :05:33.the SNP's Jim Eadie and by Labour's Kezia Dugdale, both of whom are
:05:33. > :05:37.members of the Scottish Parliament. Let's start first with you Kez,
:05:37. > :05:41.does any of this have bearing on the referendum that we end up with?
:05:41. > :05:45.I think it does, yes. This was a serious matter. We're talking about
:05:45. > :05:48.the opportunity for people to have put in multiple anonymous
:05:49. > :05:52.contributions. The public want to have faith in this process. In the
:05:52. > :06:00.referendum that follows too. It had to be fair and transparent and
:06:00. > :06:05.that's why we called for this process to stop. Jim, if there was
:06:05. > :06:09.virtue only yesterday in including all comers, why not today? Well I
:06:09. > :06:12.think what has to be made absolutely clear as your package
:06:12. > :06:17.rightly demonstrated that there was a very small number of people who
:06:18. > :06:21.were responding anonymously out of the total number of responses. We
:06:21. > :06:25.decided today to make a robust process always subject to
:06:25. > :06:30.independent evaluation and analysis, even more robust. I think that's
:06:30. > :06:36.something to be welcomed. Do you welcome it? I do. Of course it's a
:06:36. > :06:40.good move. It was only yesterday we had them on the air waves saying
:06:40. > :06:45.people could submit whatever however they wanted. Quite right to.
:06:45. > :06:49.-- too. Today we've seen an embarrassing U-turn. It's a welcome
:06:49. > :06:52.U-turn. It's a step forward to a more fair and transparent process.
:06:52. > :06:57.It is embarrassing for the Government, there's no denying that.
:06:57. > :07:01.If the Government always intended to ensure that anonymous responses
:07:01. > :07:05.were identified separately, when the analysis was produced, what's
:07:05. > :07:09.the problem? Because this has never happened before. The Government
:07:09. > :07:12.never stated that intention. This is a Government that is
:07:12. > :07:15.increasingly struggling to be straight with people. That's the
:07:15. > :07:20.fear. People need to have faith this this process and the
:07:20. > :07:26.referendum that follows. That's what my party's focused on ensuring
:07:26. > :07:30.is delivered in the end. Are there multiple, identical responses to
:07:30. > :07:34.the consultation? No, the Government's knead clear there will
:07:34. > :07:38.be no anonymous submissions and if people make multipulling
:07:38. > :07:42.submissions from the one computer for example, they will not be
:07:42. > :07:46.included. Unless you have included your personal IDification details,
:07:46. > :07:51.when you make your commission, it will not be included or accepted.
:07:51. > :07:59.Yes, that's not what I was asking about. I accept that the Government
:07:59. > :08:04.has said today that it will not allow multiple I'dical submissions
:08:04. > :08:09.from the same person or account, but there are identical
:08:09. > :08:15.contributions from many different sources? I'm not sure what you're
:08:15. > :08:18.trying to ask. I can't be clearer than saying that if there are
:08:18. > :08:21.multiple submissions from one computer they will not be accepted.
:08:21. > :08:27.If there are anonymous submissions they will not be accepted. People
:08:27. > :08:30.can have faith in the process, because any anonymous or multiple
:08:30. > :08:36.submissions will not be accepted as part of the consultation process.
:08:36. > :08:42.Plet me put it a different way. Has the SNP, for instance, sent around
:08:42. > :08:46.to members suggested wording that they might want to contribute to
:08:46. > :08:51.the consultation? I'm not aware of that. What am I aware of is that
:08:51. > :08:57.the Labour Party, quite rightly, has submitted already from its
:08:57. > :08:59.website some why in the region of something like 1500 submissions.
:08:59. > :09:04.your consultation? This is the Scottish Government's consultation
:09:04. > :09:11.as I understand it. There has been a UK consultation and it may well
:09:11. > :09:14.be that a similar number of submissions were made to the UK's
:09:14. > :09:18.consultation. That would account for 50% of the submissions received
:09:18. > :09:24.to the UK Government's consultation. Let Kezia Dugdale pick up on that,
:09:24. > :09:28.is that true and if so, isn't it an attempt to skew the outcome of
:09:28. > :09:32.these consultations perhaps even rig the results? It is true, but I
:09:32. > :09:34.don't believe it's an attempt to skew the results. Lots of big
:09:34. > :09:39.charities and campaign organisations use this type of tool
:09:39. > :09:44.all the time. What we're trying to do is have a process which invites
:09:44. > :09:47.as many respondants to reply as can be. We've said to people, party
:09:47. > :09:50.members, the public, here's some ideas about what you might want to
:09:50. > :09:56.contribute, feel free to edit the text. Every time somebody's done
:09:56. > :10:00.that, they've sent in their name and e-mail address. So there's no
:10:00. > :10:04.anonymity there, there's no multiple responses there. It's a
:10:05. > :10:11.fairway to go forward. Large numbers of people are taking part.
:10:11. > :10:15.Why is the First Minister reporting himself to the independent advisors
:10:15. > :10:21.on the ministerial code? Well that's news to me I'm afraid. You
:10:21. > :10:26.will have to enlighten me. I will answer the question. Well he has
:10:26. > :10:28.apparently done so in this row about donations to the SNP
:10:28. > :10:34.following complaints from the Labour Party. Do you welcome this
:10:34. > :10:37.development tonight? Yes, of course. The public demand the jut most
:10:37. > :10:41.transparency and scrutiny of large amounts of money being given to
:10:41. > :10:45.political parties. There are questions Alex Salmond has to
:10:45. > :10:49.answer. It's right that he's referred himself to himself. He's
:10:49. > :10:53.referred himself to the former Lord Advocate, we look forward to
:10:53. > :11:03.finding out what she has to say on the matter. Thank you both very
:11:03. > :11:03.
:11:03. > :11:07.much for joining us (. Now, the party's official name is the
:11:07. > :11:11.Conservative and Unionist Party, but for how much longer? Peter
:11:11. > :11:16.Cruddas has already embarrassed his party with his claim that's donors
:11:16. > :11:21.could dine with the Prime Minister for �250,000. Now tapes have been
:11:21. > :11:25.released in which he suggests that the party's support for unionism is
:11:25. > :11:29.not sincere and there's no doubt that a growing number of English
:11:29. > :11:36.Tories are asking if the party should really fight to preserve the
:11:36. > :11:38.union. It was just over a week ago that
:11:38. > :11:44.David Cameron told the party faithful that the Conservatives
:11:44. > :11:51.were very much part of Scotland's future, as was the union. For too
:11:51. > :11:58.long we have let the SNP claim ownership of patriotism. This is
:11:58. > :12:01.the flag of a proud nation, not the symbol of one political party.
:12:01. > :12:07.this weekend it became apparent that not all Tories are quite so
:12:07. > :12:11.sold on the union. We, as a party, have to be seen to be fighting to
:12:11. > :12:17.keep the union together. Even if we don't agree with it. Because at the
:12:17. > :12:21.end of it all, if the Scots say they want to go independent, they
:12:21. > :12:26.can say it's not what we wanted, you can't have this, you can't have
:12:26. > :12:30.that and you can get on with it. This video confirms what many have
:12:30. > :12:35.suspected that some English Tory MPs would secretly rather see the
:12:35. > :12:38.back of Scotland and its tendency to return Labour MPs. I don't know
:12:39. > :12:45.how popular it is. There's no way of knowing how many people think
:12:45. > :12:49.this. But it's kind of a view that reflects the fact that in the UK,
:12:49. > :12:52.the Conservatives, if they got rid of Scotland, would think they would
:12:52. > :12:57.win election after election. It reflects a reality that they've
:12:57. > :13:02.known about for quite a long time. And if the union were to separate,
:13:02. > :13:08.it appears voters down south would be accepting of the idea. Well my
:13:08. > :13:13.first gut feel is obviously it would be a sad loss.
:13:13. > :13:18.REPORTER: So you'd want the union to be kept in tact? Yes, but that's
:13:18. > :13:23.only for sentiment sake. In other ways too, I don't think I'd mind if
:13:23. > :13:26.they wanted to go on their own, as long as it wasn't to our detriment.
:13:26. > :13:33.You know, there's different things up there, there's different laws,
:13:33. > :13:37.certainly different laws and different culture, way of life. So
:13:37. > :13:42.yeah. I don't, you know, they probably want to get away from the
:13:42. > :13:46.Tories as much as I wo. I reckon it's quite a good idea. If they
:13:46. > :13:49.want it, there's no reason to stop them. We're not adding anything or
:13:49. > :13:53.taking anything from them. If they want to be independent, why are we
:13:54. > :13:58.to stop them. So far so frustrating for the Scottish Conservatives who
:13:58. > :14:02.have gone out of their way to emphasise the Unionist part of the
:14:02. > :14:05.Conservative and Unionist Party. You can't look at politics in that
:14:05. > :14:08.way. We are citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
:14:08. > :14:13.Northern Ireland. That is our country. And that's the country
:14:13. > :14:18.that we want to stay citizens of. That's what Conservatives believe,
:14:18. > :14:24.Conservatives and unionists, it's in our name. It gives us a clue to
:14:24. > :14:28.what we stand for. That's the way we intend it to stay. So who has it
:14:28. > :14:33.right? Many Tories have fought long and hard to keep Scotland part of
:14:33. > :14:37.the union. The former Tory MP Michael for scythe led the campaign
:14:37. > :14:40.against devolution. There are new MPs in town and not all of them
:14:40. > :14:44.have a strong allegiance to the union or Scotland for that matter,
:14:44. > :14:49.after all, there's only one Scottish Tory MP left in Parliament.
:14:49. > :14:53.So where does that leave the Scottish Conservatives in Holyrood?
:14:53. > :14:59.It kind of leaves the Scottish Conservatives exposed. They're not
:14:59. > :15:06.really very sure how to respond to this in terms of what it means for
:15:06. > :15:09.their attempts to try and campaign and use the referendum. It really
:15:09. > :15:15.undermines them a little bit, particularly if it's a view that
:15:15. > :15:19.starts to take feet and legs and becomes a bit stronger. Peter
:15:19. > :15:23.Cruddas did say that David Cameron had told him he truly believed in
:15:23. > :15:29.the union. But the former treasurer has got people wondering exactly
:15:29. > :15:34.what Tories really think behind closed dorz.
:15:34. > :15:39.-- doors. The journalist David Torrance is at Westminster for us
:15:39. > :15:44.tonight. I have to correct myself slightly. I guess there is no doubt
:15:44. > :15:48.that this is talked about in the Tories, but perhaps it's not quite
:15:49. > :15:52.so certain that this is a growing strand of opinion. What is your
:15:52. > :15:57.assessment? First of all. I think we are getting slightly carried
:15:57. > :16:00.away. Peter Cruddas was a party treasurer, not even the main
:16:00. > :16:03.treasurer. They are appointed because they know how to raise
:16:03. > :16:08.money not because they're privy to political strategy and policy.
:16:08. > :16:14.Cruddas certainly wouldn't have been. He was simply mouthing off to
:16:14. > :16:17.impress people he was trying to raise money from. But I think
:16:17. > :16:21.there's a strand of English backbench Tory opinion that
:16:21. > :16:26.probably does think that. I think they're in a minority. Whether they
:16:26. > :16:31.get any bigger, that remains to be seen. Do you think that the Prime
:16:31. > :16:36.Minister's unionism is sincere and does that sincerity extend to the
:16:36. > :16:41.Chancellor too? I think David Cameron's unionism is certainly
:16:41. > :16:44.sincere. That was pretty much evident in his speech in Edinburgh
:16:44. > :16:47.and certainly what I understand from people I speak to down here. I
:16:48. > :16:57.think it's certainly true George Osborne, the Chancellor, is
:16:57. > :17:00.probably more pragmatic. But that pragmatism extending more power to
:17:01. > :17:05.the Scottish Parliament whereas David Cameron isn't so hot on that.
:17:05. > :17:09.Both men are absolutely sincere in keeping the United Kingdom together.
:17:09. > :17:16.Do you think the voices of ordinary voters in England that we picked up
:17:16. > :17:20.in the film, do you thi they represent the mainstream view that
:17:20. > :17:25.there's a kind of shrug of the shoulders, if Scotland really wants
:17:25. > :17:29.to go independent so be it? Yeah, I think those reflect certainly
:17:29. > :17:35.public opinion in London in as much as I can gauge it and in England as
:17:35. > :17:39.a whole. It's a very pragmatic view. If the majority of Scots want
:17:39. > :17:43.independence, then they should have, it as one lady in your report said,
:17:43. > :17:47.I'd be quite sad about that, but let them go their own way if that's
:17:47. > :17:53.what they want. What's missing is a pro-active element in English
:17:53. > :17:58.public opinion or at least a mainstream pro-active element which
:17:58. > :18:03.says no, even if they don't want it, let's make them independent because
:18:03. > :18:10.we'll all be better off. That's not there yet. The so-called backlash.
:18:10. > :18:14.Yes. Thank you for your assessment. Yes. Thank you for your assessment.
:18:14. > :18:19.Let's pick up on the front pages: The Scottish Daily Mail is first up
:18:19. > :18:24.tonight. Growing families targeted in fresh tax grab is the main
:18:24. > :18:28.headline. Families who want more room at home are set to face a
:18:28. > :18:36.tripling new tax on property extensions according to tomorrow's
:18:36. > :18:39.Mail. The picture is of the newly elected MP George Galloway, a
:18:39. > :18:44.claimed exclusive by the paper, apparently he's married his fourth
:18:44. > :18:48.wife aged 27. The Scotsman front page in the morning: Motorists
:18:48. > :18:54.facing new Easter fuel shortages. This is an apparent warning from