17/04/2012 Newsnight

The Home Secretary says the man once called the spiritual head of

the British mujahideen, is on his way out of the country. Is all

today's very public bustling into cars, a distraction, with the

European Court of Human Rights, still in the driving seat, yet

again. At least the Home Office can say he's now behind bars. But why

can't we just put him on a plane to Jordan?

The mysterious death of a British businessman in China gets no less

perplexing, will we ever learn what happened. And then...You Have the

charisma of a damp rag, and the appearance of a low-grade bank

clerk, the question I want to ask, is, who are you? As polls suggest,

this man's party is the new third party in British politics, how much

of a threat is UKIP to the Conservatives?

Doesn't it make you proud to be Scottish. It's shite being Scottish.

With we're the lowest of the low, we can't even find a decent culture

to be colonised by. Irvine Welsh, ask can the United

Kingdom be called off. This programme contains strong

language. He has made a monkey out of British

Governments for over a decade, finally Abu Qatada, the man who

thinks it is a holy duty to murder women and children, is to be

shipped out of the country. At least, he might be, if the European

Court of Human Rights gives its blessing. Ground hog day is here

again. He's in custody tonight, and the Home Secretary claims she's now

got assurances which will ensure his removal from Britain. But, it

will still take time, and it's still likely to hang on the

European Court, which Britain is unwilling to defy.

Tonight Abu Qatada is behind bars once more. Described by a judge as

Osama Bin Laden's righthand man in Europe it's regarded by

Intelligence Services as a significant threat to national

security. Over more than a decade, successive

Governments have tried to have him deported, but without success.

Today, as he was arrested at his house in west London, the Home

Secretary was preparing to tell the Commons that she was confident that

the next time he was released from prison, it would be to board a

plane from Jordan. We have obtained from the Jordanian Government the

material we need to comply with the ruling of the European Court. I

believe the assurances and the information we have gathered will

mean that we can soon put Qatada on the plane, and get him out of our

country for good. Abu Qatada's departure has been prevented by the

European Court of Human Rights. Its initial concern was that he would

be tortured if he faced trial in Jordan. When the Jordanian

authorities guaranteed he wouldn't, in January, the court found a new

concern, not that he would be tortured, but that evidence

obtained by torture would be used in his trial.

The court blocked deportation because it said that the court

found that torture was widespread in Jordan, as was the use of

torture evidence by the Jordanian courts. It marked the absence of

any assurance by Jordan that torture evidence would not be used.

Thus, it said, deportation to Jordan would give rise to a

flagrant denial of justice. The Home Secretary, then, travelled

to Jordan to try to secure the assurances that she hoped would

satisfy the European Court. Jordan has changed its constitution

to ban torture evidence, and given detailed assurances that the Home

Secretary says guarantee a fair trial.

The Home Secretary, though, has been repeatedly asked why not

simply ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada any way.

reality, we simply could not do this. As ministers we would not

just be breaking the law ourselves, but we would be asking Government

lawyers, officials, the police, law enforcement officers, and airline

companies, to break the law too. This approach has brought some

plaudits from unusual quarters. It is not often that you will hear

me, the director of Liberty, say this about a Home Secretary, any

Home Secretary, but I got have give Miss May some credit today. Because

I have waited quite a long time in my career for a Home Secretary to

stand up in the House of Commons, on a difficult, unpopular

immigration case, and say, the Government must obey the law.

Of course she was unhappy with the decision of the court of human

rights, that Mr Qatada couldn't be sent to be tried on the bay sifs

torture evidence, of course she's - - basis of torture evidence, of

course she's frustrated by the time it has taken, but she has said we

have to follow the rule of law and process. Whilst the former Home

Secretary, who began attempts to deport Abu Qatada, congratulated

Mrs May, the woman who wants to be Home Secretary, wasn't nearly so

impressed. The Home Office should have acted faster after the

European Court judgment in January, and had we not had that early drift

and delay, Abu Qatada might not have been released in the first

place. And Theresa May needs to watch her own side carefully, there

appears to be limited patience on the Conservative benches. It is

hard to think of another case which so clearly sums up what is wrong

with the logic of the European Court of Human Rights. British

courts should have the final say of who stays in our country, not a

foreign court in Strasbourg. What we need is that British Bill of

Rights, as others have mentioned, declared senior to Strasbourg, and

a Supreme Court over the road, that lives up to its name.

Government has a brief window of opportunity. At the moment we hold

the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe, and, tomorrow,

the Government begins its conference in Brighton, trying to

get reform. But to do so is a big ask, it needs to get the agreement

of all 47 countries in the Council of Europe, and that, as things

stand today looks a distant prospect in terms of the

fundamental reform the Government is looking for.

Conservative MPs will certainly be watching negotiations closely.

I certainly think that the credibility of human rights, and

the UK's position, regarding the convention, are dependant upon us

getting a decent result, which sees us fully signed up to the

convention, but reform of the Strasbourg court, which has led to

too much judicial legislation, and frankly too many novel rights,

which conflict with our tradition of law and liberty. If Abu Qatada

is deported, it will be seen by the Government as a big win. However,

there are at least 15 similar cases still pending, the Home Secretary

desperately needs the whole system reformed, if she's not to spend all

her time shuttling around the hotter parts of the globe, begging

assurances from foreign Governments. Let's explore this a little further,

with the Conservative MP, Nick Bowles and Diana Johnson, the

shadow minister. When is he off then? I don't think any of us know,

because there is a court process. Today is a step forward. It might

be months and months, maybe not even this year? It could be months.

The important thing is the law on which they can mount an I peel is

narro, the European Court only questioned -- appeal is narrow, the

European Court only questioned the use of torture evidence in the

trial. They may not be granted appeals at the various stages.

you want to congratulate the Home Secretary on doing something you

failed to do during nine years in office? I'm certainly very pleased

he's in custody this evening. I think the fact that he was given

bail was because actually the Government didn't act quickly

enough once the European Court. Hang on a minute, you had nine

years in Government, during which time he made an absolute monkey of

you? There were various appeals going through that period, and now,

on reflection. He was also granted bail at one point during the Labour

Government. It is a problem that is affected us all. We need the

domestic courts and the European Courts, the Government are

considering the reforms they want brought forward, we are keen to be

part of that discussion. You would like to congratulate the Home

Secretary on what she has done? very pleased he's in custody and

deportation is back on the agenda. Because you failed? I think that is

what the general public want to see happen. Let's get on with it.

must be so pleased to have the Head of liberty cheering you on --

Liberty cheering you on? It is nice, she has been the scourge of many

Labour home secretaries. And some Conservatives one? It is good to

see her congregate late us. It is a good point to make that the Home

Secretary and the Government can't ask a whole lot of people to break

the law, while we are part of the European convention. It is pretty

gutless. I thought he were elected to represent the interests of this

country, clearly you have decided not in the interests of the country

this man is wandering around, or even in a prison here, you want him

out of the country. Why don't you just put him on a plane? What would

be gutless, and also witless, would be, firstly, to get ourselves into

a position where we are forced to take him back, and forced to pay

him compensation, because we have not been through a process that

would stand up in court. We are doing both of the right things. We

are securing the guarantees from Jordan, that no previous Government

ever got, about how they will conduct their legal process, and we

are securing changes, we hope, through the Council of Europe, to

the way that the European Court operates in the future. That is the

right way to deal with it, to stop them doing it again in future,

change their method of behaviour, and this won't happen again. We are

at the start of this process, this could take many months, if not

years to go through the process. are back at more or less square

one? I'm worried we are, I'm worried, with the Home Secretary

deciding not to go to appeal with the Grand Chamber of the European

Court of Human Rights, but we could end up back in there in years to

come if the appeals process follows all the way through. The Labour

Government spent nine years not deporting Abu Qatada, I'm rather

hopeful that we will have reported him before there is a Labour Home

Secretary in office again. You are just back from Jordan? I went to

Jordan. Are you satisfied with the assurances given there that the

Jordanians will not introduce torture take -- evidence taken

under torture? Of course they have amended their constitution now.

are satisfied are you? There are probably steps to be taken. Do you

know, are you satisfied? I think overall the Jordanian authorities

have given the guarantees we all want to see in this case. You are

satisfied with their assurances? think they are in good faith, yes,

I'm satisfied with what they have said to the Home Secretary, now we

have to see whether the courts take the same view. And if the courts

don't take the same view, you think the court was wrong, presume below?

Obviously Mr Qatada will have his lawyers advising him. I'm asking

you your view? Already his lawyers have said they will be appealing

the deportation and want to go through the various stages. I feel

having gone to Jordan, having spoken to ministers there, that

they are act anything good faith, and hopefully the assurances will

stand up. What would you have done if you were in Government for the

last two years? Hopefully we would have acted quicker, as soon as the

decision was made by the European Court, we would have acted, so Mr

Qatada didn't end up getting bail. That was of grave concern that he

was out there in the community. I'm pleased he as back on custody.

was under more stringent conditions than the Labour Government put him

under. That was only introduced because the court was not satisfied

that the Government was acting quickly enough in deportation.

Jeeves out on bail during the time of the Labour -- He was out on bail

during the time of the Labour Government. The orders now you have

available are much weaker than control orders. What is frustrate

beg it, there are many difficult problems -- frustrating about it,

is there are many difficult issues, we are wrestling with it, and the

Labour Government did too, it would be nice to say, well done for

progress, and let's see what happens? We have said that we want

to identify concerns outstanding. The frustration for the ordinary

citizen is we listen time after time to members of your party and

your leader telling us it was outrageous that Governments of this

country were not allowed to decide who should be free to be in this

country, and when it comes to it, when the Civil Service and the

Civil Service lawyers say, Home Secretary, you might be in defiance

of the European Court, you all bend the knee? That is not true, Keneth

Clarke the Justice Secretary, tomorrow, is going to Brighton,

where all the members, let me finish. 47 states to agree with

him? That is how you change things, you don't change things by wave ago

wand, I know it works in television, but in Government you have to

negotiate with your treaty parties. David Cameron said precisely that?

He said we will have to change the way the European Court operates F

it doesn't change, if we don't get that agreement, then we have other

possiblities we could look at. They are not possiblities anyone would

welcome, to withdraw from the Convention on Human rights, we are

quite right to try to change the way the court operates, by getting

the agreement of member states, all in a conference centre in Brighton

for Keneth Clarke for a negotiation. We have been in it for 30 years?

They will be there for two days, let's hope they sort it out.

think they will sort it out? Lots of people are frustrated by the

same things, we are all maddened by it, we need to persuade them all to

come to our way of thinking. Let's see if you can do it in a couple of

days? Let's see, we are going about it in right way.

We want a full investigation, and we want it free of political

interference, of the burden of the demand from the Prime Minister to

the man in charge of China's propaganda today. It is over five

months since the mysterious death of a British businessman in the chi

of Chongqing, the delay and private protestations from the Foreign

Office, are small parts of what is becoming a tangled tale.

The plot is so elaborate it is all but impet traibl, but the death of

the British business man is real enough, as is the sudden end of the

career of the Chinese politician. And the murder charge now facing

the Chinese politician's wife. She's accused of having the

Englishman murdered. All the rest, method, motive, indeed whether

there really was a murder, remains a matter of conjecture.

Neil Heywood was found dead in November, supposedly from drink, he

was cremated, months later, Chinese officials suggested he was murdered,

for threatening to expose the financial dealings of a

politician's wife. The upshot, she as charged with murder, and her

husband, one of China's most controversial leaders, xielxielxiel,

is ousted, and impli -- Zhang Xiaojun, is ousted and implicated.

Either is possible t would appear that Mr Heywood's death was some

what suspicious, the two things might not have been originally

related to begin with, and they become related as a result of

political need by the top leadership to remove Bo Xilai from

power. David Cameron met Alexa Chung, who

assured him the case was -- Abdullah Ahmed Ali assured him the

We have demanded an investigation, and the Chinese authorities have

agreed to discuss that, there is a further discussion this afternoon

between my rightenable friend and the visiting member from the bureau,

Mr Chung, and I will follow up on this extremely carefully and

vigorously. In his statement today, Could the Foreign Secretary have

done more? He knew back in February that something badly wrong had

happened, he called an investigation, he should have

announced that there and then. But you have got this philosophical,

ideolgical approach, that says don't raise difficult questions

with difficult regimes. All that matters is trade and business. That

is important, vital for Britain, but we can't give up our broader

responsibility, whether it is human rights, or in this case, something

very bad that has happened to a British citizen. In Britain, the

focus is on the mysterious death of a British subject, but in China

it's all about the demise of a political maverick. Bo Xilai was

one of the Princelings, promoting rapid growth, while also declaring

faith in social equality, he was the coming man. He is somebody

willing to use any method possible, he's a man of extraordinary

charisma. He wanted to use that charisma to generate public support

to further his career. Once he gets to the very, very top, as a member

of the standing committee of the politic bureau, what he would do we

don't know, now we will never find out. In China, and among comien

niece exiles abroad, there is bound -- Chinese exiles abroad there is

speculation. Bo's son is at Harvard and is attracting traffic. There is

stories about his luxuries and lavish, and luxurious party

lifestyle. So there is interest in China, in what is going on? People

are very interested, especially that there is so many rumour about

it. This is alleging that another senior official is involved in this

whole thing, and he's going to be the next person to be investigated.

He's under suspicion, this is a big deal, because he is one of the most

senior politicians in the poll lit bureau. The main line of inquiry is

that Neil Heywood fell out with Bo's wife, a friend and business

partner, over money. There a lot of speculation that he was involved in

helping the family to deal with over's assets. Is that a common

occurrance with anglo-Chinese relations? It is common for a

significant number of senior Chinese Government officials to

have very expensive, large offices, assets, that are not commensurate

with their official income. They certainly require help to

manage those overseas investments and properties.

Whether it was a row over money laundering, and whether Neil

Heywood was really murdered, is unknown. Bo's former police chief

appears to have the answers, he's incommune kaid dough in custody.

Two men maybe able to share light on this are my guests. Cameron has

asked for a full and unpolitical inquiry, will that happen? I don't

think it is, there is no body, the body was cremated within days of Mr

Heywood dying. The decision has been made at the highest level in

Beijing that Bo Xilai will be demoted, and therefore, his wife

has been arrested, and it is a massive political issue in China.

So, the decision has already been made.

The Chinese officially announced a reinvestigation into the case, but

it seems they have already pretty much drawn the conclusion. There is,

in the meantime, tremendous speculation, we don't know if it

was a death from natural causes, or if it was a murder, as some people

allege, we just don't know. Are we ever likely to know, do you think?

It is very difficult, but the fact that they made the announcement in

conjunction with the police chief, who tried to seek asylum from the

United States, who, as was said, was so close to Bo Xilai. That

could be interpreted as a move, a political move, but many people in

China do believe that something suspicious happened, in this case,

I think, even though Bo Xilai HIVself wasn't, and hasn't been

accused of anything, except as a member of the family.

Interesting as we saw in that piece of tape there. The way in which the

Chinese websites are dealing with all of this. Presumably there is

lots of people tweeting to one another about it too. This is a

very, very interesting predicament for the Chinese Government isn't

it? Absolute game changer, I would say. On the day that Wang Lijun,

Bo's righthandman, drove 300 miles to the British consulate, the web

erupted on the microblogs, there are many people on there, Twitter

is blocked, but they have their own variance of Twitter. And everyone

is talking to everyone else. In the past there was one voice, and

everyone listened to it, it was the voice of the Communist Party, and

that is changing, the whole dynamic of this. A lot of this information

is not untainted, a lot of it is put out there, in a proper gand da

offensive, by the -- propaganda offensive, this is a very God way

of dealing with political problems -- good way of dealing with

political problems and opponents? It is difficult to say which bit is

propaganda, and which bit is rumour or the truth. I think we will have

to wait until a proper procedure, proper investigation has been

carried out, before we draw our own conclusions. We need to look at the

evidence. I thought we agreed a proper investigation was extremely

unlikely? We will have to go through the process, or the motion,

they will only have to wait for any announcement of any new findings.

There is a saying in Chinese, there is no war without a crack, that the

wind can -- no wall without a crack that the wind can flow through.

it a new way of dealing with political opponents? In many ways

it is a time honoured way of dealing with political opponents,

go after their relatives, use their second in commands in all sorts of

ways. The difference is the environment in which it is played

out. In the innuendo, the putting out there of stories of one kind of

another, spreading not through the official media, this is very

interesting? It is interesting, it could come back and bite them. That

is why it is so interesting. They are feeding, the Government feeds

stuff into the semi-free media, the semi-free microblogs, of course it

is sensored, there are thousands of censor, but there are millions on

the micro blogs. At the same time there is allegations of corruption,

millions of dollars being spirited abroad, coming out, and Chinese

people are having to have the lid lifted on the politics.

Where do you think it goes next? think when the announcements are

made, or anything, people can predict, it will be a justification

for the central party commity to -- central party committee to trip Bo

Xilai of power. It is an evidence, anecdote or foot note for that.

Those who are going to take over the baton in October, or even later,

some people are saying probably the progress will have to be post pond,

we will see more -- postponed, we will see more things coming out.

Thank you very much. We will have more on China tomorrow night when

sue Lloyd Roberts will be speaking to the Dalai Lama about the self-

immollations in Tibet about the protests of Chinese rule.

These leaders are very foolish, narrow-minded authoritarian people,

only their mouth, no ears. Never ready to listen to others' views.

There is a spring in the step of the leaders of the UK Independence

Party, they still have no Members of Parliament, but the latest

opinion poll today suggest they have replaced the Liberal Democrats

as the third party in British politics. You can tell they are

doing well, because Conservative ministers are using expressions

like "swivel-eyed" about them, there are dark unsubstantiated

rumours about a couple of Tory MPs thinking of defecting to them.

Could the people once described as "fruitcakes" by David Cameron,

cause serious damage to his party. When the North Sea has a wild day,

this town is prone to flooding, it was at its worst when once a

European wind storm sent a vicious squall to Thurrock. 50 years on

political wind storms come fairly frequently from the continent, the

sitting Tory MP won it by 93 votes, but 3,000 votes went to UKIP. Today

U kil kip polled third in the opinion polls -- UKIP polled third

in the opinion polls, causing concern for the Liberal Democrats

but also for the Conservatives. The problem for some is so deep that

they could use a majority in the next election. One worrying fact

for the Conservatives is that in the 2010 election, when UKIP won 3%

of the vote, one third of what they polled today, there were 2 sit sis

where their vote was larger than the -- 22 sit sis, where their

society -- constituencies, where their vote was larger than others

other parties. I don't think that the Conservative

Party can take its own supporters for granted. Clearly the polls are

showing that there has been some movement from the Conservative

Party to UKIP, possibly from Labour to UKIP as well. I think that if a

Conservative Party has a robust euro-sceptic policy in the future,

hope leefl in the near future, that we will be -- hopefully in the near

future, we can attract those gone to UKIP, and hopefully those who

have found a home there over the past few years. Nigel Farage, the

leader of UKIP, has made it his name to replace the Liberal

Democrats as the third party. There is policies on national rail

alongside Europe. One political operation working out of the back

of a local pub has a different perspective. If you were consulting

on this, people would feel more respect for the politicians and

think they have listened to what I have to say. The people's pledge

are campaigning for a referendum on the relationship with Europe, they

think as it stands populations are ignoring popular opinion. UKIP is

successfully capitalising on this. The people's pledge, it is a pro-

referendum majority at the next election. You need MPs to get the

referendum out. We are starting that process, you need Members of

Parliament in order to progress there. The threats to Cameron are

by UKIP, could be half-a-dozen seats the next general election,

but a much bigger threat...What your proof of that? On the ground

here, UKIP polled 3,500, we polled 13 though, nearly four-times as

much. Any -- 13,000, nearly four- times as much. Any UKIP threat to

Cameron is a temporary one. It might cost half-a-dozen seats in

the next election. The real threat to Cameron is if the Labour Party

comes out in favour of a referendum, he will lose another general

election, not in coalition but going into opposition. This

experience in Thurrock suggests not all seats with bulky UKIP votes

would necessarily go to the Tories, but as likely to any other

political party. But the clamour in the Conservatives is strong, and

they want the fightback to go-to- start now. Sooner or later the

Conservative Party will have to address the European question, most

people alive today haven't had a say on the European question. We

will have to have that referendum. When that commitment comes forward,

I think we will be able to attract back those Conservative members

that have gone to UKIP, and those UKIP members not part of the

Conservative family for many years. There is real anxiety among

Conservative MPs over this issue. They say in the forth coming

boundary reviews, if MPs lose their seats, then they may as well defect

to UKIP, go down in a ball of flames in the words of one MP we

spoke to. Downing Street, however, does not sympathise, they point out

two things. Firstly, they say often people who vote UKIP, vote UKIP for

incoherent reasons, if they chase those voters, they too would look

incoherent, and secondly, they reiterate, the key to them for the

majority of 2015, lies in winning over Lib Dem and Labour swing

voters, not UKIP. UKIP is not to be dismissed lightly,

last year they came second, although distant, to Labour's win

in Barnsley's by-election. We have a problem convincing people that we

are the most euro-sceptic Government ever. Because Europe is

not a particularly important national issue. If you look at

recent polling, only 5% of people said our relationship with the EU

was the most important thing on their mind. The most important

things are jobs, the economy, the health service and immigration. So

I think we are having almost too much of a focus on the European

issue, and not enough focus on some of the big picture issues.

gaining 100 votes the Tories could be denied by UKIP Thurrock at the

next election. Their ambitions of replaces the Liberal Democrats as

the third party, they need to gain their own seats, not depriving

others of their's. Let's discuss this with two people

with opposite political journeys, Lord Hesketh served with Margaret

Thatcher and John Major. He defected to UKIP in October last

year. Frf Westminster we are joined by George Eustice, the Conservative

MP, once David Cameron's press secretary. He was previously a UKIP

candidate in the 1999 European elections. What does I kip offer

you that the Conservatives couldn't? I don't think -- UKIP

offer you in with what the Conservatives couldn't? I don't

think it is in terms of offer, I first canvased, aged seven, for

Harold Macmillan in 1959, I think I was nine to be accurate. I think

for me, the defining moment was when the, Mr Cameron reneged on the

referendum. It is all very well to call us "swivel-eyed" and

"fruitcakes", but I have been Government Chief Whip and Treasury

of the Tory Party. It doesn't stop you being a fruitcake? If that is

the case, it says a lot of the Tory Party and the future to come.

have made the opposite journey, you accept these guys are a real threat

to you? UKIP has been around for ten years. I remember when I was a

candidate for them in 1999, there was a poll that showed UKIP had 15%

of the vote. They had done particularly well in the last three

euro elections, I don't doubt they will do quit well in the next one.

They are a protest vote. -- quite well in the next one. The real

thing for me, is I am someone who wants repatriated powers from

Europe, and the immigration process reversed. We can only do that with

a Conservative Government, we have a euro-sceptic Conservative Party,

and Prime Minister. What people have to stop doing is ending this

game of arguing about referendums, that is what you do when you try to

stop something happening, and argue to take powers back, that doesn't

require a referendum. Lord Hesketh? A simple answer is UKIP is part of

a bigger issue, within all of modern politics in the west. If we

are in Marseille last weekend, for example, you will have seen the new

French left rallies in unprecedented number. You will see

Tea Party in the United States. You will see political groupings, which

are novel and growing. Growing for a simple reason. In your case,

single issue? Not at all. My job in UKIP is to be the defence spokesman,

because I think the Government has done an appalling job, basically

because they believe what they are told by the Ministry of Defence.

That is what my main occupation is at UKIP, when I'm not actually

working. The reality is, people are deeply

disillusioned by being lied to, by many stream political parties

across the spectrum. We didn't have to go to North Africa and see what

happened in the Arab bring. It is all part of something bigger.

George Eustice, you do accept there is widespread disillusion both with

you and the other mainstream parties? There is always

disillusion with mainstream political parties. We are in a

democracy, I'm somebody who believes small parties should have

a right to stand, and stand and make their case. I don't have a

problem with that. As somebody who has stood for UKIP and has worked

with them, I have no doubt there is well meaning people there who think

they are doing the right thing for the country. They are a counter-

productive reliability. Lord Hesketh is snorting here? I think

it is extremely generous that we are being told that small parties

should be allowed to stand. We are only a few yards away from getting

back to the kind of extremism that existed in Europe before 1939, it

is the most lid cus statement, to be perfectly frank, the reality is

the Conservative Party are suffering because, firstly, you do

not have a euro-sceptic Prime Minister. You have a Prime Minister

who was advised by the Foreign Office, produced the document, that

no-one could believe wouldn't be signed, because Sarkozy lost his

temper it was signed. He was the first Prime Minister to wield a

veto? A veto on what. You have to remember that this Government has

brought in the EU Act, which now has a referendum lock. So it is

impossible now, we are in the same situation as Ireland now, it would

be impossible for a Government to pass further powers to the European

Union without there being a referendum. That is the right time

to use a referendum, to stop powers going away, not if you want to try

to bring powers back. UKIP had a role to play 15 years ago to get

this up the agenda. It is a redundant, counter-productive

organisation. In terms of whether it damages the Conservative Party.

There is no doubt most of its activistsics like Lord Hesketh, are

Conservatives. They draw support from across the spectrum, they need

to do the serious work of renegotiating our relationship with

the European Union. Let me ask you one simple question. If support for

UKIP were to cost the Conservatives an overall majority at the next

election, would that be a good thing? They would only have

themselves to blame. I'm asking whether you think it would be a

good thing? It is not my position to make that judgment. Yes it is?

You would rather see a Labour and Lib Dem coalition than a

Conservative Government? Politics are about the art of the impossible.

Then it would be impossible for the Conservatives to form a Government.

I'm sorry, there is a large body of opinion in this country, not just

confined to the Conservative Party Tont make a mistake about it.

asking a question you seemed to decline to answer. The question is

what is the realistic outcome, and the outcome of behaving in the way

Mr Eustice and his colleagues are behaving, could result in that.

They would have only themselves to blame. If you happen to be watching

mainstream BBC north of the border, you won't be seeing this, Free

Newsnight, or whatever it is called in that part of the country, is

evidence of the extent to which Britain, as a whole, is joined

together still by an active union, but an active union increasingly

frayed around the edges. The year after next, the people of Scotland,

but not the people of England l get the opportunity to decide whether

they want to end the union all together and become independent. In

a moment we will see if one of Scotland's best known writers,

Irvine Welsh, can persuade the historian, Tristram Hunt, that the

union has had its day. Here is how some of his characters addressed

their national identity, in the film of his book, Trainer, with

some -- Trainspotting, with some typically strong large Doesn't it

make you proud to be Scottish? is shite being Scottish, we are the

lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth, the most wretched,

servile thrash ever shat into civilisation. Some people hate the

English, I don't, they are just wankers, we, on the other hand, are

colonised by wankers, we can't even find a decent culture to be conised

by. We are ruled by a few arseholes, it is a shite state of affairs to

be in, Tommy, and all the fresh air in the world won't make fucking

difference. With us now is Irvine Welsh, and

with us also Tristram Hunt. Now, are you surprised to find yourself

a nationalist? Yeah, I don't really see myself as a nationalist, I see

much more of the union being in a secular decline. I see the union as

very much conceived to facilitate British imperial expansion and

British industrial expansion, sustained by a kind of welfare

state, and the two world wars, and all these things no longer exist,

they have gone. I don't see what is driving the union, what is holding

it together. What is driving the union now? I think that is a very

compelling point. What was so interesting about the Trainspotting

piece there was to suggest that the Scottish had been colonised, but

the Scottish themselves were colonisers as part of the imperial

project, when we look back at the creation of Britishness, whether it

is Protestantantism, or imperialism, many of those driving influences in

the 20th century have frayed. Just because that kind of construction

of it is not there, it would be wrong to suggest that the

attributes of nationhood have some how all together lost. I personally,

very strongly believe, that Scotland, England, Wales, Northern

Ireland, gains more from the cohesive whole, than it would do if

it split up into ethnic sensablities of nationhood? I don't

think that cohesive hole is that sense of Britishness, I don't think

it is served by a political union any more, though. I think that's

the thing that people will think, people feel in Scotland now, that

it's not so much Britishness that they are against, it is the concept

of the UK, and the usual union. I think that the two political

cultures have become very divergant. He's right there, they have become

very different? They have, but I think that is the strength almost

of the settlement at the moment, that you can have those elements of

devolution, within the architecture of the UK. I think what works at

the moment is, contrary to what you think, is the political settlement,

I think the cultural settlement has fallen away. That is why Gordon

Brown, for all his determination to build British values and a sense of

Britishness, was actually going against the cultural currents of

feeling of Englishness, and Welshness. Why should people in

England not be allowed to express their Englishness for fear of

offending Scots or Welsh, and fear of their position, they are put in

the union, of oppressing Scots and Welsh. Have you a fear of

expressing your Englishness? I have never felt it. I have a lot of

constituents who feel their Englishness is not allowed to be

expressed on the same level as Scottishness. England is a

multicultural post-imperial nation trying to work out its identity.

Scotland is a different society developing and a different

political culture. I don't see any connection now. I think that

certainly the generation, the younger generation from the

Trainspotting generations, every one of them seems to be much less

vested in the union. Supposing the Scots decide not to go for

independence though, that self- loathing that we saw in that clip

from Trainspotting, that is going to get really acute, isn't it?

think it will. People realise that it is not really an option now. I

think if, it is like when David Cameron said to the SNP, which I

think was a very Craven thing to say, look we will give you the tax-

raising powers, not on my watch, you know. He was almost saying the

game is over, and it is all about legacy with politicians. Tony Blair

staying in office to become a longer serving Prime Minister than

Margaret Thatcher. It is the same with David Cameron, he's conceded

the point and saying not on my watch, just buy me ten years of

being de facto members of the union. I certainly think he's doing great

political damage to the union, but I think we also have to think about

the strengths of Britain, on a global stage. Whether it is the

army, whether it is the UN, whether it is our diplomacy, all of those

elements actually give much greater riches and influence to Britain as

a whole. Not in the case, when you look at some of the decisions made

in foreign policy, if you look at Afghanistan, so many people were

against that war, and I don't think you can pick these kinds of things

as being pluses. Do you think post people really care about the world

stage? I think people do, I think people like the fact that Britain

is a leader on the world stage. We are good at diplomacy, we are an

influential power for a small island stuck in the North Sea. We

still have that. But, that doesn't alleviate the part of what we think

about our post-imperial identity. He's right, we need space for

English people to talk about their English identity more actively. I

don't think they can do that in the construct of the political union of

the UK. I think paradoxically the way to enhance Britishness is to

get rid of the political union and enhance the cultural union, even

bring Ireland back into the British fold. They may have a view on that,

of course. But once you have taken this kind of imperial thing out of

Britishness, and it is, and you get back to being this value-free idea

of people living in these islands and sharing some kind of cultural

heritage, but having the different free individual political

expressions, to put their own systems together and work out their

own issues. That is the strength of what we can have today, which is

multiple identity, whether you can be West Indian-British, Pakistani-

British, ethnic-British, you can have a identity there, and a

federal British identity, which gives all sorts of broader

advantages, I think, to the UK. People have moved on from that in