:00:05. > :00:15.years. I wanted to make sure she was taken care of and so far it has
:00:15. > :00:17.
:00:17. > :00:20.Tonight on Newsnight Scotland - for "reprehensible" is how the Barclays
:00:20. > :00:23.boss Bob Diamond discredit the fixing of rates by his dealers. But
:00:23. > :00:26.could it actually be criminal? Fraud cases are much easier to
:00:26. > :00:30.prosecute in Scots law. So could we put the bankers on trial?
:00:30. > :00:33.And, the Higgs Boson - or something very like it - has been found. We
:00:33. > :00:38.will try to work out what that means.
:00:38. > :00:41.Good evening. MPs may have hardly landed a punch on Bob Diamond, but
:00:41. > :00:44.should he be afraid of legal action? The recently resigned head
:00:44. > :00:46.of Barclays faced the Treasury Select Committee this afternoon,
:00:46. > :00:55.and while some of the questioning he faced was quite aggressive,
:00:55. > :00:58.little new emerged from the session. Fraud is very difficult to
:00:58. > :01:03.prosecute under English law as it stands, but not so hard in Scotland.
:01:03. > :01:07.So could we put the bankers on trial? Jamie MacIvor reports. Bob
:01:07. > :01:12.Diamond may now have replaced Fred Goodwin as the banker has some love
:01:12. > :01:19.to hate. Last week it emerged Barclays had been rigging a key
:01:19. > :01:25.interest rate. It was fined �290 million. Yesterday Mr Diamond
:01:25. > :01:30.resigned in disgrace. Today he was quizzed by MPs. When I read the
:01:30. > :01:33.emails from those traders, I got physically sick. It was
:01:33. > :01:39.reprehensible behaviour and if you're asking me should those
:01:39. > :01:44.actions be dealt with, absolutely. Mr Diamond said Barclays had been
:01:44. > :01:50.the first to own up but believed other banks may be involved as well.
:01:50. > :01:56.As public concern over the banks continues, an inquiry is under way
:01:56. > :01:59.here which may lead to prosecutions. We can only speculate about what is
:01:59. > :02:04.actually being probed. The Crown Office says it has been
:02:05. > :02:08.investigating banks for a sometimes. It's serious and organised crime
:02:08. > :02:15.division is waiting the scope of that inquiry. But what is the
:02:15. > :02:20.scope? It is not saying publicly so we do not know and even some banks
:02:20. > :02:24.have been tried to find out. For instance, is the inquiry restricted
:02:24. > :02:29.to banks based in Scotland or could any bank which has customers here
:02:29. > :02:36.potentially be investigated for say an alleged crime committed in the
:02:36. > :02:41.city of London? To have jurisdiction in Scotland, there has
:02:41. > :02:46.to be an effect of the crime on individuals or a company in
:02:46. > :02:50.Scotland. For example, famously the Lockerbie case, the planning is
:02:50. > :02:55.perceived to have taken place in malts a, the individuals are
:02:55. > :03:00.perceived to have been from Libya and there was supposed to be
:03:00. > :03:03.planning in Libya, and the actions resulted in deaths and tragedy in
:03:03. > :03:07.Scotland. So you have a number of different elements but no one
:03:07. > :03:12.argued that the jurisdiction did not apply to Scotland. The same
:03:12. > :03:16.would apply to an individual who has lost out because of a fraud. He
:03:16. > :03:22.could make a complaint to the police in Scotland, despite the
:03:22. > :03:27.fact that the main commission of the crime was in England. So will
:03:27. > :03:30.the Crown Office look at the scandal fixing interest rates or
:03:30. > :03:37.might it looks for example at the events which led to the near
:03:37. > :03:42.collapse of Royal Bank of Scotland? Again, we just do not know. We do
:03:42. > :03:49.know it can be easier to take cases -- fraud cases to court in Scotland
:03:49. > :03:54.than England. So out of the border, there -- fraud is covered by a
:03:54. > :03:58.Fraud Act which is a form of words which covers behaviour. We do not
:03:59. > :04:04.have this in Scotland, we have the common law which allows you to
:04:04. > :04:09.decide whether a certain actions amount to a crime. That is a
:04:09. > :04:14.decision which is made by a judge on his own or by a judge and jury.
:04:14. > :04:20.While the kennel may speculate about what the Crown Office is
:04:20. > :04:23.actually investigating, the potential is vast. -- while we can
:04:23. > :04:25.only speculate. I'm joined now by Professor
:04:26. > :04:32.Alastair Bonington, and from London by the Principal of Hertford
:04:32. > :04:35.College Oxford, Will Hutton. What do you make of this announcement by
:04:35. > :04:40.the Crown Office that it is apparently conducting an
:04:40. > :04:44.investigation into the bank's? seems extraordinary that we have
:04:44. > :04:47.had this situation for about four years and they suddenly announce
:04:47. > :04:52.the same afternoon that I go on the radio and say nothing has happened
:04:52. > :04:57.even Scotland, the Crown had done nothing, they say actually we have
:04:57. > :05:06.been doing something but we just had not told anyone. I think it is
:05:06. > :05:10.a little bit odd. They did not spell it out. One sentence said the
:05:10. > :05:16.scope of the investigation will be extended as a result of recent
:05:16. > :05:19.developments, what do we make of that? It could be the rate rigging
:05:19. > :05:25.issue or it could begin the selling of financial instruments to small
:05:26. > :05:33.businesses. If it had been the case that there was an investigation
:05:33. > :05:36.taking place, surely, four hears, even with the Crown this would have
:05:37. > :05:41.resulted in arrests an inquiry is being made. The banks themselves
:05:41. > :05:47.are saying they know nothing about an investigation, no one has asked
:05:47. > :05:53.any questions of them. It is a very secret investigation if the people
:05:53. > :05:59.who are being investigated have not noticed. Matter of the lob - is it
:05:59. > :06:07.shrew that it is easy to prosecute for fraud. -- matter of the law.
:06:07. > :06:13.Absolutely. Back in 1996, one of the Law Lords in England
:06:13. > :06:20.specifically said how much easier things are in Scotland. Give us the
:06:20. > :06:25.very simple explanation. As Jerry Brown said, you use the common law.
:06:25. > :06:29.You ask if there has been misrepresentation with the
:06:29. > :06:35.intention of producing a fraudulent result. If that is the case, it
:06:35. > :06:40.does not matter where it originated as if they affect is felt in
:06:40. > :06:44.Scotland, that is enough. The fact something happened in England or
:06:44. > :06:48.New York but there was an effective Scotland would allow us to
:06:48. > :06:54.prosecute. Why is the more difficult in England? They had
:06:54. > :07:02.these convoluted statutes. It has to fall within ambit of that Act.
:07:02. > :07:07.We do not have that problem. impressed were you about the
:07:07. > :07:16.investigator the ability of this bunch of MPs this afternoon? They
:07:16. > :07:20.did the best they could but they do not have the power of a judge to
:07:20. > :07:29.call for a mere mobile-phone calls, the text messages and the e-mail
:07:29. > :07:33.trail. They have to take what Mr Diamond says, or any other witness.
:07:33. > :07:38.When Mr Diamond said the first he knew about who was five days before
:07:38. > :07:45.the FSA publish their report, you have to take that on trust. When he
:07:45. > :07:51.says it is reprehensible and he felt sick, to the question how much
:07:51. > :07:57.did you know? They have no leverage. It does not work I do not think,
:07:57. > :08:04.not because they are MPs but because they do not have the
:08:04. > :08:10.forensic capability of a judge and a lawyer. As a lawyer, I am sure
:08:10. > :08:16.you were delighted to hear that. Yes, indeed I am and I am free for
:08:16. > :08:22.instructions at any point! He is absolutely right. Lawyers do it
:08:22. > :08:27.better. We are good at something I hope. But we can sometimes take a
:08:27. > :08:33.long time, like the Savell inquiry. Most of the people were dead by the
:08:33. > :08:37.time it ended. You have got to keep a tight rein but it can be done.
:08:37. > :08:44.The Levinson inquiry has been done very well. What are the arguments
:08:44. > :08:49.being made to? David Cameron once that same about it effectively to
:08:49. > :08:52.do his very short and sharp inquiry into the banking industry. Their
:08:52. > :08:58.argument was they would have the ability to have people appear under
:08:58. > :09:08.oath. Do you think that would make up for it or demean the apparatus
:09:08. > :09:09.
:09:09. > :09:19.Every MP has to have a go and it is very difficult to get them to hand
:09:19. > :09:19.
:09:19. > :09:25.the baton on. Secondly, offering a couple of extra people to work
:09:25. > :09:35.alongside the current secretary at of the committee to give it extra
:09:35. > :09:35.
:09:35. > :09:38.resource is not serious. I do not think the question of the oath...
:09:39. > :09:43.People are very adept at not falsifying information under oath
:09:43. > :09:49.but that does not mean that they are telling the truth. You have got
:09:49. > :09:55.to get at the underlying evidence base. I am just curious as to what
:09:55. > :10:01.vibes you are picking up in London as to whether there is a mood for
:10:01. > :10:05.prosecutions - not necessarily of Mr Diamond but, perhaps, of some of
:10:05. > :10:11.the people who have been involved in this libel fixing scandal. We
:10:11. > :10:18.already know that other banks will be involved. -- this great fixing
:10:18. > :10:22.scandal. We have heard about people who have spent months in prison for
:10:22. > :10:28.stealing a bottle of water and the lack of any similar action being
:10:28. > :10:33.taken against these traders. Four traders were sacked by Royal Bank
:10:33. > :10:36.of Scotland earlier this week because of their role in this
:10:37. > :10:43.inquiry. It occurred to me that this might be the case - that the
:10:43. > :10:46.Crown is investigating in Scotland. If your view of the law is as you
:10:46. > :10:51.describe it, I think he would have a very strong case and it may be
:10:52. > :10:57.that, actually, Edinburgh can bring people to book faster than London,
:10:57. > :11:00.which, in my view, would be good. Do you have any confidence that
:11:00. > :11:05.might happen? I think it could be done but I do not think there is
:11:05. > :11:10.the appetite to do it. You have to look at politics. One hates to dog
:11:10. > :11:14.about politicians on any civilised programme but nevertheless, it is
:11:14. > :11:19.very obvious that the SNP do not want it to be seen as Scottish
:11:19. > :11:24.banks have caused the near- bankruptcy of the United Kingdom.
:11:24. > :11:27.am not sure the last administration in Scotland would be any more...
:11:27. > :11:32.Perhaps they would not. But it is very clear that the present one
:11:32. > :11:38.feel that. In a way, this is quite a different thing to get your head
:11:38. > :11:44.around but it seems to have generated anger among the public.
:11:44. > :11:47.Isn't this about more than the law? The whole point about the way in
:11:47. > :11:53.which this particular rate is set is that it was never designed to be
:11:53. > :11:57.governed by law - it is informal process. I was trying to think of a
:11:57. > :11:59.comparison and the comparison is someone like a drug dealer, who has
:12:00. > :12:06.sufficient morals to steal from everyone else to finance their
:12:06. > :12:11.habit but not from their own family. This is a good drug dealer who
:12:11. > :12:17.steals from their own family - is that a bad analogy? The reason why
:12:17. > :12:21.everyone is upset about it is because, actually, it is naked
:12:21. > :12:27.manipulation of a price. The only way you can manipulate it is by
:12:27. > :12:31.doing the manipulating with others. They also did not like the e-mail
:12:31. > :12:35.exchanges. The point is, it is manipulation of a system with no
:12:35. > :12:41.safeguards, because when the system was set up, it would have been
:12:41. > :12:44.inconceivable that you would need any safeguards. You have got 16
:12:44. > :12:49.banks here - the biggest banks in the world and members of the
:12:49. > :12:59.British Bankers Association. Based at the base interest rate for 12
:12:59. > :13:05.
:13:05. > :13:10.currencies. -- they eat set up the base interest rate. You do not mess
:13:10. > :13:16.on your own backyard. What these people were doing was actually,
:13:16. > :13:21.they were literally messing up their own structure. And over and
:13:21. > :13:24.above that, the cascade effect on others was huge. And then the
:13:24. > :13:30.profits that were made from this were a huge and the bonuses that
:13:30. > :13:35.were made from this were huge, and Mr Diamond knew that of the kinds
:13:35. > :13:39.of profits made on the trading desk would also inflate his bonus. There
:13:39. > :13:43.was no incentive on him to do anything about it. In the three
:13:43. > :13:46.hours, he never volunteered a view of how it could be different. He
:13:46. > :13:52.just said that action should have been taken. By whom? It was
:13:52. > :13:56.extraordinary performance, I thought. The Financial Times was
:13:56. > :14:06.pointing out today that if this was a casino, its licence would be
:14:06. > :14:08.
:14:08. > :14:14.taken away. Indeed. When Peter Hagues propose the --
:14:14. > :14:18.Peter Higgs proposed the existence of the Higgs boson particle, he had
:14:18. > :14:23.little expectation it would be discovered in his lifetime. It has
:14:23. > :14:30.taken the work of over 10,000 scientists but today, the discovery
:14:30. > :14:35.of a "Higgs-like" particle was announced at CERN. It is a relation
:14:35. > :14:38.between electromagnetic waves and particles. One of the man who
:14:38. > :14:45.invented the theory struggles to explain it, you know you are
:14:45. > :14:50.dealing with difficult stuff. have a quality which is called the
:14:50. > :14:58.Higgs boson. That is a particle that is believed to give other
:14:58. > :15:04.particles mass. Heggs bosons crumb empty space, creating a cosmic
:15:04. > :15:08.trickle. Some scientists believe they feel the waves more than
:15:08. > :15:13.others and that a greater be ripple, the greater the mass. Scientists
:15:13. > :15:18.announced today they have enough evidence to be almost certain that
:15:18. > :15:23.the Higgs boson or something like it exists. We have a discovery. We
:15:23. > :15:33.have discovered a new particle. Most probably a Higgs boson. Define
:15:33. > :15:36.
:15:36. > :15:43.the Higgs boson, scientists looked at more than 1000 trillion protons
:15:43. > :15:46.inside the Large Hadron Collider. When the battles collide, there is
:15:46. > :15:50.a high energy explosion and the degree of each explosion is
:15:50. > :15:56.analysed for evidence of the particle. For Peter Higgs, the
:15:56. > :16:01.validation of his the was an emotional moment. I would like to
:16:01. > :16:05.add my congratulations to everybody that help with this tremendous
:16:05. > :16:11.achievement. For me, it is really an incredible thing that has
:16:11. > :16:16.happened in my lifetime. scientists around him, the question
:16:16. > :16:21.is firstly whether they can confirm the discovery and secondly, where
:16:21. > :16:27.it will lead. I am joined by a Dr Aidan Robson, who is part of the
:16:27. > :16:31.Glasgow University team at CERN. They are saying they have
:16:31. > :16:39.discovered something like the Higgs boson. What is the significance of
:16:39. > :16:43.those two words, "something like". It is accepted we have discovered a
:16:43. > :16:46.new particle, which is probably a Higgs boson. The moment of
:16:46. > :16:50.discovery is when you just have enough data to say that there is
:16:50. > :16:55.something there. The challenge now is to collect a lot more of these
:16:55. > :16:58.particles, to make precise measurements and see whether they
:16:58. > :17:04.actually have the properties that are predicted by the Standard Model,
:17:04. > :17:10.which is the theory of particle physics. So, we do not yet have
:17:10. > :17:16.enough knowledge from this discovery that something is there,
:17:16. > :17:21.rather than what it is, to know that this Higgs boson does the work
:17:21. > :17:24.of the theory which has to explain how massive rises. That is correct.
:17:24. > :17:28.We have discovered this new particle which seems to have the
:17:28. > :17:31.right electric charge to be the Higgs boson, and has a mass which
:17:31. > :17:36.is more or less consistent with being the Higgs boson. We are not
:17:36. > :17:39.sure about another property, which is the spin. So far, everything is
:17:39. > :17:42.consistent with this part of being a Higgs boson but the idea now is
:17:42. > :17:46.that we make a lot of precise measurements by putting them
:17:46. > :17:50.altogether, seeing whether they are consistent, to pin down whether
:17:50. > :17:55.this is a standard model Higgs boson or something a bit more
:17:55. > :17:59.exotic. We hope that these precise measurements will. As in the
:17:59. > :18:02.direction of further new discoveries. Which is more exciting,
:18:02. > :18:05.from the point of view of theoretical physicists? Is a more
:18:05. > :18:12.exciting if this turns out to behave exactly as the standard
:18:12. > :18:16.model predicted it will behave? All, actually, if it behaves a bit like
:18:16. > :18:22.that but there is something going wrong, which maybe means that it
:18:22. > :18:25.could prompt new theatrical -- theoretical discoveries? Be is
:18:25. > :18:29.exciting to see anything at all. The second case would be more
:18:29. > :18:38.exciting, where we were opening up a halt realm of new physics to
:18:38. > :18:43.investigate. Where does this go? 95% of the stuff in the universe is
:18:43. > :18:50.unaccounted for, isn't it? How does the Higgs boson relate for the
:18:50. > :18:53.Cirque -- relate to the search for that? As you say, only about 4% of
:18:53. > :18:59.the universe is the normal matter that we know about, so the search
:18:59. > :19:04.for dark matter, which we think is about a quarter of the universe, is
:19:04. > :19:09.clearly the next goal for particle physics. The Large Hadron Collider
:19:09. > :19:12.can address that in a couple of ways. You could try to create dark
:19:12. > :19:19.matter particles directly, like we did with this new particle that we
:19:19. > :19:27.have been talking about today. matter, despite its name, is not on
:19:27. > :19:30.observable. -- unobservable. Yes, and we could be created at the
:19:30. > :19:33.Large Hadron Collider. The reach of the current collider is not enough
:19:33. > :19:37.to make it directly but we would hope to be able to observing it
:19:37. > :19:41.through its effects on particles that we do know. That is where the
:19:41. > :19:44.Higgs boson comes in. We need to be very sure that we have a complete
:19:44. > :19:51.consistent standard model of particle physics, and then we can
:19:51. > :20:00.read pregnancy what may be beyond that. -- we cannot really probe and
:20:00. > :20:07.see. This goes to the heart of the theory of relativity, which
:20:07. > :20:11.explains gravity and how space and time work, and the quantum theory
:20:12. > :20:17.of sub-atomic particles. We are still in the realm of quantum
:20:17. > :20:22.mechanics here. To join those two forces, or gravity and relativity
:20:22. > :20:25.on one hand and quantum mechanics and the other, you have to go to
:20:25. > :20:30.very, very high energy Scales, which are not bridgeable from
:20:30. > :20:34.colliders. But we hope that from the lower energies at colliders, we
:20:34. > :20:39.can see the trajectory of weather theories are going and try to work
:20:39. > :20:43.out what is happening at a high energy scales. If this is a Higgs
:20:43. > :20:48.boson that we have discovered, there is plenty of room between the
:20:48. > :20:50.energies we can reach out and the highest energies for an entire new
:20:50. > :20:58.spectrum of physics to be discovered.