:00:13. > :00:16.staffing at the hotel but the One new states Scotland tonight,
:00:16. > :00:20.the first she constable of the whole country goes public with his
:00:20. > :00:26.approach to the new job. -- the first Chief Constable.
:00:26. > :00:31.His plan will mean wholesale job losses amongst the civilian staff.
:00:31. > :00:34.Also, as JK Rowling shares her referendum voting intention, do we
:00:34. > :00:41.care what stars and celebrities think about politics? And should
:00:41. > :00:43.Asked the idea that his �208,000 pair your salary, the new Chief
:00:43. > :00:48.Constable of the National Police Service of Scotland replied, I am
:00:48. > :00:53.worth it. Stephen House's wages may be deck, but so are the challenges
:00:53. > :00:57.he faces as the new force is expected to save �1.7 billion over
:00:57. > :01:00.the next 15 years will maintaining record numbers of police officers.
:01:00. > :01:05.Today at the new interim headquarters at Tulliallan in Fife,
:01:05. > :01:10.Mr Howard told me how he plans to do this. It is hard to say exactly
:01:10. > :01:15.how many people, but for clarity let's be sure that police officer
:01:15. > :01:19.numbers will not be reduced. Police officer numbers will stay high and
:01:19. > :01:24.I support that. It does put more pressure on to a civilian
:01:24. > :01:27.colleagues and some -- in support staff roles. There could be many
:01:27. > :01:32.hundreds, it is difficult for me to say just coming into this job, to
:01:32. > :01:36.see exactly how large this number will be. We are talking about a lot
:01:36. > :01:41.of people, probably into the low thousands but I cannot go into
:01:41. > :01:46.details. 3,000? Too early to say at this stage.
:01:46. > :01:54.One calculation we were given is that there was around �80 million
:01:54. > :01:58.set aside for redundancies. Us that the calculation you are working to?
:01:58. > :02:02.You can do the exact calculations, it might come out at that level but
:02:02. > :02:06.things can change. We are still six months away from the start of the
:02:06. > :02:11.new organisation, what we must do is to the work now to figure out
:02:11. > :02:17.how to close the budget gap. And again, pinions in Derry on just how
:02:17. > :02:24.much that is. There are many variables. -- again at opinion is
:02:24. > :02:32.very on how much that is. The bottom line is, by roundabout 20th
:02:32. > :02:37.April 15, we must be costing nearly �180 million less as a service that
:02:37. > :02:40.we currently are, so that is a significant challenge. Much of that
:02:40. > :02:45.will have to come from fewer people joining the Organisation.
:02:45. > :02:50.Which people are we talking about? Will that have an impact on the
:02:50. > :02:56.policing people see on their streets? Be able to be to have as
:02:56. > :02:59.little impact on the policing on the streets as possible. If we are
:02:59. > :03:03.talking about high numbers of support staff leaving, self-
:03:03. > :03:07.evidently, those people are doing reported jobs for policing right
:03:07. > :03:11.now. But the thing that we will have to try and focus on is being -
:03:11. > :03:15.- is bringing eight police forces together into one police force in
:03:15. > :03:21.Scotland. There will be duplication of roles and it is those areas that
:03:21. > :03:25.we will have to target. It is those areas that will have to be back
:03:25. > :03:31.filled by police officers. I would not sit here NCT that there will be
:03:31. > :03:36.no back Phelan by police officers, there will have to be some. -- York
:03:36. > :03:39.back filling. I would have to say that if there is back felling by
:03:39. > :03:43.police officers, this will not affect the number of officers on
:03:43. > :03:47.the streets. How can that be achieved? Of more police officers
:03:47. > :03:51.are dealing with paperwork jobs that support staff to, they cannot
:03:51. > :03:55.do that and be on the streets as well. It might not only the paper
:03:55. > :04:01.work jobs, sometimes the paperwork is incredibly important but it
:04:01. > :04:03.could also be working in their control room at Contact centres at
:04:03. > :04:09.Kinfauns and despatching other police officers. Very important job
:04:09. > :04:13.to be done by police officers. I can only speak from Strathclyde
:04:13. > :04:16.experience, there is other good practice in other forces and we
:04:16. > :04:19.carried out a number of reviews in the past few years of police
:04:19. > :04:23.officers working in their headquarters buildings and we are
:04:23. > :04:26.identified 100 people, police officers, who were working at jobs
:04:26. > :04:29.at headquarters that we thought we could do without and they were
:04:29. > :04:34.redeployed to operational roles. There is an opportunity across the
:04:34. > :04:37.whole of Scotland to carry out a review like that. To make sure
:04:37. > :04:41.police officers were carrying it essential jobs.
:04:41. > :04:44.In terms of those numbers, you see that there is a political decision
:04:44. > :04:50.which is to remain the -- to retain the current number of police
:04:50. > :04:54.officers. Is that an operational necessity? In my view, the number
:04:54. > :04:59.of police officers has to be high, and I do not think that the number
:04:59. > :05:05.that I would want is a lot less than 17,234, when I came to
:05:05. > :05:08.Strathclyde last year we had 7250 officers, today we have 1,500.
:05:08. > :05:12.Violent crime has reduced every year in the past five years in
:05:12. > :05:15.Strathclyde. I believe there is a direct correlation between the
:05:15. > :05:20.number police officers available for operational deployment and the
:05:20. > :05:24.levels of crime, so numbers must stay high. I would be pretty stupid
:05:24. > :05:27.if I sat here and told you that we couldn't manage with one or two
:05:27. > :05:35.less officers, but the Government has decided that that is the number
:05:35. > :05:39.they want to keep, but at the rules within which I am working. Give us
:05:39. > :05:44.an idea. If you try to look for research which says that there is a
:05:44. > :05:48.direct link between police officers and the reductions in recorded
:05:48. > :05:51.crime, the research doesn't exist. He cannot prove a direct link. That
:05:51. > :05:58.is why I ask you, operationally it may not make sense for you to
:05:58. > :06:01.continue to spend a lot of money on having 17,200 officers, it might
:06:01. > :06:04.make more sense for you to spend that money elsewhere at Therefore
:06:04. > :06:08.operationally you could do with fewer officers and more cash to
:06:08. > :06:12.spend on other services. There is a lot in there, I do not disagree
:06:12. > :06:14.with much of what to say and we need a mixed economy and policing,
:06:14. > :06:18.and I would never say that we simply the police officers and
:06:18. > :06:23.nothing else. We need highly dedicated support staff working
:06:23. > :06:27.with officers and we have that, it must continue. This cannot be a
:06:27. > :06:30.police only service and I would never be in favour of that. I do
:06:30. > :06:34.believe that need the preponderance and high number of police officers.
:06:34. > :06:41.Research may not be available, but my research and if the titties
:06:41. > :06:48.years tells me that the more police officers you have, if used
:06:48. > :06:55.effectively best -- in crime can come down. -- but my research in
:06:55. > :06:58.the 32 E years tells me. What is the danger and how can you
:06:58. > :07:02.prevent year as Chief Constable be a political puppet for the whims of
:07:02. > :07:06.whoever is in office if they find a political concern, what is to stop
:07:06. > :07:11.the picking up the phone to tell you to sort it out? Let me be clear
:07:11. > :07:15.on this, if the Government had wanted, and the Government cannot
:07:15. > :07:17.control this process, but if they want take up its they would not
:07:17. > :07:21.have full phoned my number, because I have stood up against the
:07:21. > :07:27.Government on a number of issues and I'm prepared to do the same
:07:27. > :07:31.again. I think they have chosen me because of my track record of
:07:31. > :07:35.leadership in Strathclyde, and delighted to have the opportunity.
:07:35. > :07:39.In terms of accountability, I am not accountable directly to the
:07:39. > :07:42.Government, and accountable to the police authority and to the board
:07:42. > :07:45.of the police authority and I think that is a good arrangement. The
:07:45. > :07:55.Government will give the poor strategic direction and the board
:07:55. > :07:55.
:07:55. > :08:00.will develop with me a strategic plan. I will deliver that plan.
:08:00. > :08:03.Many of Scollan's civilian police workers are represented by Unison,
:08:03. > :08:08.I am joined now by George MacIrvine, the Cherokee is an's police
:08:08. > :08:12.committee. -- the chairman of Unison's police committee.
:08:12. > :08:19.This level of loss of civilian workers was inevitable once they
:08:20. > :08:23.decided to merge eight forces into one, wasn't it? And top of around
:08:23. > :08:27.3,000 potential job losses, that is what unison were predicting, isn't
:08:27. > :08:34.it? I think you will find that Unison have said for many months
:08:34. > :08:38.that there would be up to 3,000, which is nearly half the workforce
:08:38. > :08:44.in Scotland would face or be threatened with the axe over the
:08:44. > :08:48.next few years. It is only until now that we are hearing from the
:08:48. > :08:53.newly appointed Chief Constable that it is reality. The Scottish
:08:53. > :08:57.Government and the R G S have fudged the issue when we have
:08:57. > :09:01.challenged them, and it is all we know that we are hearing from
:09:01. > :09:05.Stephen House that it is a reality. What difference will it make to
:09:05. > :09:11.lose so many workers? We heard Stephen House say that inevitably
:09:11. > :09:16.police officers will be perhaps required to back fell where support
:09:16. > :09:20.workers currently work, but he believes that the police -- the
:09:20. > :09:27.police work that people want and the frontline can be maintained.
:09:27. > :09:33.You must realise that we are the public as well, as a taxpayer I
:09:33. > :09:37.expect police officers to attend when iPhone, however, when we talk
:09:37. > :09:42.about back filling posts, it has been ongoing since they started
:09:42. > :09:46.voluntary redundancy and early retirement schemes. He cannot be
:09:46. > :09:50.good of 1,000 police and civilian staff in Scotland and maintain the
:09:50. > :09:58.same efficiency and effective police service. Police officers are
:09:58. > :10:00.now within back from police staff posts, in control room and custody
:10:00. > :10:04.and such like. The Scottish Government have a
:10:04. > :10:08.policy which is against any compulsory redundancies, if the
:10:08. > :10:12.figures which Stephen House is suggesting, many hundreds which
:10:12. > :10:18.here is certain about that perhaps into the low thousands, d'you think
:10:18. > :10:23.that is achievable with no compulsory redundancies?
:10:23. > :10:26.I would certainly, and a regional committee would certainly ask the
:10:26. > :10:32.question, how can Mr House, the Scottish Police Authority chaired
:10:32. > :10:39.by Mr Emery and Mr MacAskill himself, they have a conundrum. She
:10:39. > :10:43.cannot retain 17,234 police officer numbers, he cannot states that he
:10:43. > :10:47.will maintain no compulsory redundancy policy but expect the is
:10:47. > :10:53.and people to just walk out of the door. It is madness.
:10:53. > :10:56.So it would not happen as far as you're concerned? No, not at all.
:10:56. > :11:00.How will they say the money? think that is a question you must
:11:00. > :11:04.ask Mr House. The campaign that Unison is running at the moment,
:11:04. > :11:08.and as we say we are open to any discussions and negotiations around
:11:08. > :11:13.the table, we need a discussion with the Scottish police
:11:13. > :11:17.authorities to be set up. We want to speak about a balanced workforce,
:11:17. > :11:21.the right mix of police staff and officers doing the correct jobs are
:11:21. > :11:25.being paid appropriately to deliver an effective and efficient policing
:11:25. > :11:28.for Scottish communities. Very briefly, do you think this will
:11:28. > :11:33.lease to some form of industrial action if his predictions turn out
:11:33. > :11:39.to be true? We always hear that, when any trade unionist is on in
:11:39. > :11:44.the media there asked that question. That is a tool in the armoury. We
:11:44. > :11:54.heard that news today from Mr House, we have yet to meet formally asked
:11:54. > :11:59.
:11:59. > :12:04.the committee. Thank you very much We may be two years from the
:12:04. > :12:10.referendum but almost anyone with a microphone will be asked about it.
:12:10. > :12:14.Scotland's most popular ever writer said that she would not. She was
:12:14. > :12:20.asked directly and she did say nobody else should necessarily be
:12:20. > :12:28.influenced. As you might expect there is some flash photography in
:12:28. > :12:37.this report. Not least the chap on the far right.
:12:37. > :12:43.With the economy on the far right Prime Minister is so there Olympic
:12:44. > :12:49.success as advantages even if it was reflected glory. Andy Murray at
:12:49. > :12:52.succeeded and was celebrated. He was seen as a Scottish success For
:12:52. > :12:58.Our First Minister. One of the most extraordinary achievements in
:12:58. > :13:05.Scottish history. So what about politicians making much of Scottish
:13:05. > :13:09.success? Sometimes the gifts come from out of the blue. JK Rowling
:13:09. > :13:15.was asked about independence and did not duck from answering it.
:13:15. > :13:18.think devolution has been fantastic for Scotland. I really do.
:13:18. > :13:24.Pragmatically I think we have a great deal of independence right
:13:24. > :13:28.now. But independence right now is not a great idea. We are in the
:13:28. > :13:35.middle of a huge terrifying worldwide recession. I just think
:13:35. > :13:40.that now is a time for stability. Scotland is doing great under
:13:40. > :13:45.devolution. I think economically, we're pretty stable and our
:13:45. > :13:50.condition. I would be personally at first to doing anything to
:13:50. > :13:55.destabilise that in the next few years. Independence is the national
:13:55. > :13:59.state for a nation's like Scotland. We're used to celebrity endorsement
:13:59. > :14:04.in party political. Sean Connery for the SNP and more recently for a
:14:04. > :14:13.Labour David Tennant. We can make Britain the country we all wanted
:14:13. > :14:21.to be. Before the present leader we got John Cleese for the Liberal
:14:21. > :14:27.Democrats. The party is going from strength to strength. But it can go
:14:27. > :14:37.wrong. Remember Kenny Everett for a Margaret Thatcher. Let's bomb
:14:37. > :14:38.
:14:38. > :14:43.Russia! Let's kick Michael thick's stick away! You do not need to be
:14:43. > :14:47.immediate professional to work out that newspapers know that celebrity
:14:47. > :14:54.cells. The question is though, does anyone really know what the effect
:14:54. > :14:58.is in politics? Some parties such as labour certainly seem to believe
:14:58. > :15:05.in the power of celebrity more than others. Whether it is Neil Kinnock
:15:05. > :15:13.and Tracey Ullman or no Gallagher and Tony Blair. That 1 later
:15:13. > :15:18.backfired. Not quite as spectacular late at its Robbie Coltrane at the
:15:18. > :15:21.Labour Party conference. Eventually I would like to see independence
:15:21. > :15:27.but only an independent Labour Scotland. I think this is the way
:15:27. > :15:34.to go about it. In the States celebrity endorsement such as Oprah
:15:34. > :15:38.Winfrey and Stevie wonder backing Barack Obama is a where one --
:15:38. > :15:45.we're warned it pass. But Barack Obama showed that it can sometimes
:15:45. > :15:50.go wrong. How do you handle it? What you say to people? That list
:15:50. > :15:59.goes on. Michael Caine and David Cameron, Eddie Izzard and Gordon
:15:59. > :16:05.Brown. Colin Firth and Nick Clegg. JK Rowling's personal intervention
:16:05. > :16:13.aside the current campaign over the Independent referendum has seen
:16:13. > :16:17.actors and the get it -- their it can and better Together campaign
:16:17. > :16:23.sees others. It was pointed out that a number of the celebrities
:16:23. > :16:26.that supported the yes campaign such as Sean Connery do not live
:16:26. > :16:31.here and do not necessarily pay taxes here and then to what extent
:16:31. > :16:36.why were they being called upon to tell us what to do? To that extent,
:16:36. > :16:42.the desk Scotland campaign is arguably an example of what the use
:16:42. > :16:49.of celebrity can potentially backfire. On the other hand, there
:16:49. > :16:55.at can mac better car mac together at campaign has seen better success.
:16:55. > :16:59.Thought to be pro union and pro- Labour he is a great celebrity
:16:59. > :17:05.catch although he did call hoary route -- holy writ a pretend
:17:05. > :17:09.Parliament. He also said that his desire to be a politician should
:17:09. > :17:17.ban you for life from being one. Do not expect his celebrity
:17:17. > :17:20.endorsement any time soon. Dr Chris Harman talks -- teaches at
:17:20. > :17:24.Strathclyde University. Do you think this endorsement from JK
:17:24. > :17:28.Rowling makes any difference? has been some research done on this.
:17:28. > :17:33.Not a lot because it is hard to get your head around. But the research
:17:33. > :17:38.that has been done has shown that there is a particular demographic
:17:38. > :17:43.that you can target with the sort of celebrity endorsements. The
:17:43. > :17:48.people that are at a political or disengaged. Those are the ones that
:17:48. > :17:52.can be motivated to either become interested in a particular issue or
:17:52. > :17:57.move their positions around. People who are actually already
:17:57. > :18:01.politically engaged and watch Newsnight and do those sorts of
:18:01. > :18:05.things, at those people to not to respond to celebrity endorsements.
:18:05. > :18:10.Does it matter for those who were not politically engaged? Does it
:18:10. > :18:18.matter who it is? JK Rowling is an author, or that have more cachet
:18:18. > :18:23.with them than others? In America as the clip showed Oprah Winfrey
:18:23. > :18:28.endorsed Barack Obama. The celebrity has to be tied to the
:18:28. > :18:32.issue that they are discussing. A public affairs. They have to be
:18:32. > :18:37.known for taking positions on issues that the public can identify
:18:37. > :18:42.with. Those celebrity in dormant -- endorsements matter. Celebrities
:18:42. > :18:46.who were not linked to politics or public affairs, it tends to be the
:18:46. > :18:51.case that their endorsements are lost in the noise and do not matter
:18:51. > :18:56.that much. If you think of political parties, of all different
:18:56. > :19:00.views, there are often desperate to get photographed clasping hands of
:19:00. > :19:08.various celebrities. You are saying that they should discriminate more
:19:08. > :19:12.or. Certainly. Celebrities have to have the profile. If the person has
:19:12. > :19:16.not knowledgeable about the issue or topic then they could be talking
:19:16. > :19:23.about to just about anyone. The studies show that for the
:19:23. > :19:27.politically engaged getting endorsements of every day and
:19:27. > :19:32.normal people, those are the ones that actually move it around. You
:19:32. > :19:36.can get the impression that the Yes and No campaigns on independence by
:19:36. > :19:40.going with different strategies actually targeting different
:19:40. > :19:44.audiences. What would be your advice to them? What the people
:19:44. > :19:47.will not have made up their mind yet and warned until the last
:19:47. > :19:52.minute. If they are storing celebrity endorsements to should be
:19:52. > :19:56.that for? Which celebrity? Yes. Or should they bother with
:19:57. > :20:01.celebrities? The trick is that if they're trying to target the people
:20:01. > :20:05.that have not been paying attention then the really should have maybe
:20:05. > :20:09.rule out some high-profile celebrities who are known for being
:20:09. > :20:13.engaged with politics. If we're looking at just targeting people
:20:13. > :20:19.who already pay attention, then the celebrity endorsements are not
:20:19. > :20:25.going to matter that much. In terms of looking ahead, for the next
:20:25. > :20:29.couple of years, do you think that politicians will learn much from
:20:29. > :20:33.celebrity endorsement? Does it matter where they left or not? We
:20:33. > :20:37.saw at the beginning of the Yes launched there was lots of
:20:37. > :20:40.criticism because many of them did not live here in Scotland. Did
:20:40. > :20:45.people pay attention to that? But did they just think that they
:20:45. > :20:50.endorsed it and thought it was amazing? When you start rolling out
:20:50. > :20:56.a lot of celebrities and build a story around it if it is a positive
:20:56. > :20:59.story that can help to increase enthusiasm. Studies show that the
:20:59. > :21:04.more celebrity endorsements you get the more excited the public can
:21:04. > :21:09.become about the issue. If that is going to have a negative story and
:21:09. > :21:12.if that is going to be we're all now have fixated on where do they
:21:12. > :21:20.live and where do they pay taxes than that is not going to be a huge
:21:20. > :21:26.help. I'll now looking at tomorrow's headlines.
:21:27. > :21:31.JK Rowling on the front page here. That is about her new book.