16/04/2012 Newsnight Scotland

we come to agreements we stick to them. On Newsnight Scotland, is the

SNP ready to change the policy on membership to Scotland? Has the

purpose of Nato changed in all recognition anyway. Scottish

scientists create a machine which could create almost anything,

including cures for diseases you don't even know you are going to

get. Good evening. The evening saw reports that the SNP is on the

verge of reversing policy so that an independent Scotland should be

part of Nato. It is clear that any change in approach to Nato would

not include an acceptance that missiles should be based on

independent Scottish soil. David Alison wonders if this is just the

latest SNP policy to undertake subtle changes ahead of the

referendum. Don't be fooled, there is a lot going on under the surface.

The SNP is something of a constantly moving target,

apparently moving policies to soften its image and not frighten

the horses. Sadly not the voters. For example, the SNP would now keep

the Queen as head of state and the way once strident views, like that

of Republican Rose, are now gone. I know it, you know it, the press

know it. Republican know it, most of them think we are already a

Republican Party. The end there is the pound. Where once the euro was

Scotland's destiny, there has been a major rethink and now a newly

independent Scotland would carry on using sterling, with interest rate

set by the Bank of Scotland. Now there is a change in policy to do

with membership in Nato, policy has always been against membership

because of the policy from Nato on nuclear weapons. The most famous

attack on the organisation from the SNP came from Alex Salmond in a

party political broadcast in 1999, when he criticised Nato

intervention in Kosovo. It was formed as an alliance against

potential aggression from the Soviet Union. It achieved its

purpose without firing a single shot, but now for the first time it

is acting in an offensive way outside United Nations. It is an

action of dubious legality and definitely one of folly. That

action backfired and the party has looked to soften its stance. I have

tea-party strengthens our co- operation with other countries of

conventional defence by reiterating our determination to move nuclear

weapons. Alec Salmond was supportive of action in Libya.

Backing up the protection of civilians must be the case, those

who have taken the atrocities against civilians must be held to

account. From the bottom to the head of state. Any foreign policy

change at Nato would have to be ratified in June. By coincidence,

1600 troops from the UK, Denmark, France, Canada, the USA and the

Netherlands are taking part in a Nato exercise in Galloway and dumb

phrase. It included troops from France. Back in 1966, General de

Gaulle, visiting Moscow, withdrew from the command structure citing

US dominance and all non- French Nato troops were asked to leave

France. But France has remained a member of the alliance,

demonstrating that flexibility is possible and an independent

Scotland which asks for the removal of nuclear weapons on the Clyde

could still be a part of the Nato family. In 1999, former Communists

states, hungry, the Czech Republic, and Poland, now Slovenia, Lithuania,

Slovakia, Romania and others have joined since 2004. After an anti-

nuclear anti-Nato stance in 2004, the wilder side was changing fast.

Now the party is having to play catch-up, and the shadow Scottish

secretary insists that on all big issues the SNP is making the policy

up as it goes along. There is no doubt that the strategy of trying

to nuclear eyes difficult issues is designed to try and make life

difficult for political banners to tie them down. -- nuclear rise. It

all raises issues of what may be pitched between now and the

independence vote. A I am now are joined by Mike guests, thank you

for joining me. What is the point of Nato now? The point is to

maintain peace in Europe and it has done that be on the end of the Cold

War. The notion which the SNP suggest it was wrong, saying that

Nato no longer had a purpose. It is false. There are frets that Nato

can respond to. One is the very uncertain situation about what

Russia is today. This is not a cold war, Russia will not come across

the border. But it is unstable, is it a democracy or not? They are

great territorial questions about Russia. Nato has a point. In what

ways would Scotland be safe in Nato than without? Sky since primary

concern is off the east coast, Nato provides you with a system to

patrol that. The SNP's current policy, based on the Nato defence

means that there are no Scottish naval ships which could reach those

will fields in less than a day. It would take such a long time to get

around. So Nato, if you stay in Nato, you provide some kind of

integrated system. Presumably far wider interests are effective if

the oil fields are attacked in any way. If that is a state attack, yes.

But what if it is sabotage? The kind of thing which is not a state

to state war. Nato should provide an ongoing system to show what

crafts are at sea. The is there any other sort of alliance, if Scotland

does not stay in Nato, they could stay in to replicate that level of

Safe Guard? Why would the Nato countries make an exception to a

small country like Scotland which is not being co-operative. You

cannot dictate those terms. Countries like Denmark and Norway,

the closest comparison to Scotland, have based it on a strong Nato

relationship. They are not going to jeopardise their Nato relationship

by giving Scotland a preferred position in that. In Norway in

particular, it is so wedded to Nato because of the problems with Russia,

they are not going to give a non- Nato Scotland any special treatment.

Can you say that, yes, we want to be in Nato, but we don't want to

have nuclear power, the nuclear subs. We don't want anything to do

with nuclear power on Scottish soil. It is how you define the term "non-

nuclear." they are only three countries, France, the United

Kingdom and the US which openly have a nuclear-weapons. If you are

not planning to maintain these weapons then you are talking about

most of the Nato countries. But, talking about whether a country can

have a nuclear weapon on a ship, if that is how you define it, then you

would have trouble. It is that lot Denmark says? Have they not been

able to secure that? So Scotland would have to negotiate. That is

possible. The non-nuclear thing is not a deal breaker. What if America

says we need some nuclear capability which must based in

Scotland for some strategic reasons. We need some credibility on

Scottish soil. Is that they no? I'd don't know if they would say that,

but it may be that they talk about the war ships which visit Scotland.

The United States might say "if you don't let us in we will use run-a-

ball bases." it is very hard to see how the United States, or why the

United States, would ask to base weapons in Scotland permanently.

Scotland can negotiate an arrangement with the US. You broke

the story yesterday, this has been something which we know was

discussed at a certain level within the SNP for a long time, but a move

up in gear now. Why? The referendum is on the horizon. If we accept it

is 2014 as the timetable, that is only two years away and there is a

lot of behind the scenes policy work going on on difficult issues.

They believe be a perspective needs to be more fleshed out, so they

know what they are talking about when the referendum campaign comes

around. They will go into the campaign with issues like this

dealt with and thought through, with research and analysis done

upon them so they can anticipate attacks from their opponents. The

campaign, the cross-party on none SNP body for the independence

referendum, I understand will be launched shortly after the local

elections. That coincides with is gearing up going on within the

party. How divisive do you think it is within the party now? His is

interesting. There is a sizable, vocal, not that focal at the moment,

but a vocal minority within the SNP for whom the idea of Nato

membership is an affable. It has been the policy for 30 years. We

had, in 2009, Jamie Hepburn saying that Nato was a cause of

instability. Then we had two government ministers suggesting

they agreed. But academic research suggests a small majority would

support a change, I spoke to a local branch chairman last week who

said the party is in listening mode and if the leadership presents as

something you need to do in order to win the independence referendum

it will compromise things a lot. Follow in your report yesterday we

reported that nuclear groups suggested that if the SNP are not

unequivocal on this, they will lose votes on the left. Where do you

think the average quoted it is on this? I'm not sure that they

technicalities of these international issues enter into the

everyday conversations. The economy was the major issue in the debate

foremost, that is what gets people excited. Part of this politically

is about continuity, about the SNP saying that independence is not

that different from what you have now. When you wake up on

independence day we will still be defended in this major airlines if

we go in this direction. You will still have the Queen as a head of

state. We are trying to win the one battle, they will think, they will

put almost anything else to one side. The cabbie at his nuclear

weapons. There is no willingness in the SNP, at a high-level or grass

roots, to make any change on that. The membership need to be persuaded

-- you can be in Nato without nuclear arms. The idea of an

independent nuclear deterrent is part of the policy to which all of

the three UK parties are signed up to. We know from the SNP spring

conference that the wording was that Trident should be removed as

soon as possible. This is a really important question and the SNP

cannot dictate these terms. If you break up the United Kingdom, which

is what independence would be, you would throw the rest of the United

Kingdom, basically England, into a debate about the defence position.

England might say we will no longer be a nuclear power. Britain only

really keeps an hour to get the un Security Council veto. That would

be called into question if the United Kingdom breaks up. The idea

of England having it makes no sense. England could say fine, we keep

Looking down the line, would cut the outcome be if there was an

independent Scotland negotiated on a basis that there would not be

Trident and the Government is not an SNP government? It is

fascinating, I should clarify what I said about the Lib Dems and

nuclear weapons, the Lib Dems are not comfortable with nuclear

weapons, but it was part of the coalition deal. The SNP would see a

two-stage process, the day when Scotland votes Yes in their world

and eventually, independent state, and in this period, there would be

negotiations not just with the UK government with London, but also

with various international bodies that Scotland would aspire to be

part of, the European Union, perhaps, potentially with NATO

allies. If Scotland on Independence Day wakes up still in NATO and with

an SNP government committed to withdraw and there is a change in

government, then the question would be about it being timetabled. How

quickly could the nuclear issue be dealt with? There are the

practicalities of nuclear disarmament because a lot of the

anti-nuclear campaigners are saying part of the objection because you

are morally subscribing to nuclear- weapons, but technically speaking,

how quickly can you do it? We have so little time, but looking at 2020

when Trident runs out? If England wishes to keep them, they need to

build a new, purpose-built facility costing a huge amount of money when

there is no money. It could take a long time. Faslane is a beautifully

equipped sub base. How much to be a bargaining chip would it be in this

discussion? For the SNP? To say that we will keep the submarine's

year, does it give them any leverage? It would be a big problem

for them, I would think. It gives England leverage in the decision to

take them. We need to leave it there. I bet we will come back to

that. Thank you. Researchers at Glasgow University have developed a

revolutionary new process to print trucks. They have 3D technology

that could have a purse of pharmacy dispensing drugs at home. --

personal pharmacy. One day they may be able to diagnose illnesses

before they actually happened. It is just a matter of a few years

ago the BRI d'Or being able to print something in 3D rather than

too deep seemed like science fiction. -- the idea of being able

to print something. Now, look at this. 3D printers like this used

layers of plastic to build objects The big idea at Glasgow was why use

just plastic? One of the big dreams in science fiction and technology

is the idea of a universal matter compiler and we have this with 3D

printing when we can print almost anything but how can you put

chemistry into the device? At we take what is in this test tube and

print it and Prince the test-tube at the same time? To print the

coloured ink which is the chemical that will react and the glass at

the same time, so you can do reactions in a new way. What is

happening here? In this Printer, we have been able to print the reactor

and also print in the reaction, rather like if you have a mink jet

printer and the colour is coming out, all the collar is the chemical

and you can do a reaction in the object that we print. -- the colour.

We changed the shape of the test tube and the chemistry very quickly,

so this means conceptually, we can print money more molecules, but

when we print the molecule we do new reactions and make new things,

new drugs, may become a new pigments and detergents. They're

calling it reaction where, not just bespoke designs for chemical

reactions taking place, but they have chemicals to drive the process.

We make the device had done a very simple material, so this is just

made of bathroom sealant, the kind of stuff you put around just sink

and the shower to make sure that it is watertight. We can printed as a

gel, throwing nozzle, like this. -- print it. And it has it robbery to

have consistency that can have a reaction inside. -- it Robert type

constituency. We also have catalysts year for this matrix so

that we can have carbon that will make it conduct so that we can make

conduct of appliances and things that you can pass a charge through.

And slightly more sophisticated versions like this that contain

mazes of chemical components in sequence. They have done it using a

modified 3D Printer and open Soffe software. This device has to so

Rangers that contains pink for printing material. -- it has two

layers of ink. It compiles its layers to build up the architecture

that we have designed on the computer and so on the left-hand

side, we have blanks structural link and on the right hand side, a

conducting think that can produce structural materials. -- conducting

Inc. And we put the material into the structure of the device that it

is printing. Where could it lead? The team envisages a revolution in

pharmaceuticals, bespoke drugs designed to treat illnesses on a

person by a person based us all dispensed from a press of Pharmacy

in your own home. It is early days, but we would like to print a

reactor with chambers in a defined sequence with specific catalysts in

those chambers so that you can buy a common in starting material like

you can buy ink for Europe computer today and put it into the reactor

and turn it upside down and put it in the microwave for five minutes

and added come the product you were trying to print, whatever that

might be, say a prescription drug. What are the implications for the

pharmaceutical industry? This is a mind-blowing concept in that if we

can bring together some Engineering and molecular biology and chemistry

in one format, then we could be able to imagine a scenario where

you could treat you diseases before you know that you're going to get

them. -- you're diseases. What are the implications of that?! We could

take your cells and predict what diseases you will get and create

the drug to treat them before you even get the disease. The idea of

turning digits into things has, very long way in a very short time

at the Glasgow team have already taken out further by creating

several molecules including some anti-cancer drugs. Ultimately the