26/11/2013 Newsnight


Kirsty Wark talks to Scottish first minister Alex Salmond about his government's blueprint for independence.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/11/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



This programme contains strong language.


Out today, the Scottish government's blueprint for an independent


country, but is it a game-changer? Journalists from all over the world


descended on Glasgow to hear the pitch for independence. A Newsnight,


Alex Salmond throws down the gauntlet. We are entitled to a share


of the asset. This is as much our pound as London's pound. It's


certainly not George Osborne's pound. The children's commissioner


for England find out children as young as 11 mete out sexual violence


to others just as young. Loads of stories, you will be at a party, and


see one girl and go to different boys. I've been at a party and seen


one girl go through about ten different boys in one night. We talk


to a former gang member and David Lamy MP. Another twist in the


plebgate row: one out of the eight officers involved will face criminal


charges. After a ?250,000 spend and one year on, we still don't know who


said what at the gates of Downing Street. My reputation was destroyed.


I was vilified relentlessly over 33 days.


Good evening, it's not War and Peace, and it's very long, and its


critics have dubbed it a work of fiction, but today the Scottish


government made clear what they want to happen if Scotland votes yes next


September. The document reiterates the desire to keep the pound and a


currency union and retain membership of the EU and NATO, but the desire


and the hard reality might be very different. What we do know for sure


is that an independent Scotland would keep the monarchy and


EastEnders. Allan Little is in Edinburgh. What is actually new?


What did we learn today? Not very much for a document that runs to 670


pages, except this: the detail, the detail is new, and it is new that it


is a comprehensive account of the shape, and character, and spirit of


the kind of society and independent Scotland that Alex Salmond and


others want to see. This is meant to be a comprehensive account. This is


meant to ask all the questions that people ask when they say, "I haven't


yet got information information." Ask when they say, "I haven't yet


got information information. " -- enough information." They hope the


Scottish public will turn to this online or in any paper forms it


comes in, and seek reassurance about the kind of ambitions that the


Scottish government has. One big thing that is new is that they're


promising what they call a revolutionary spans, an extension of


childcare for children under school age so that they can encourage more


women to go back into the workplace on a kind of Scandinavian model, if


you like, encourage more women to become part of the productive


economy, and help the kind of economic growth that they would want


in a independent Scotland, and it would pay for many of the


commitments that they make in this document. What is new, really, is


the comprehensive nature of the aspiration that they are make. What


do you think is their biggest asset? It was impressive watching Salmond


who, as everybody knows, is a master political operator, and increasingly


Nicola Sturgeon, speak today, because although it was an


exhilarating moment for their supporters, you could taste the


excitement in the air. Many of the members of the Scottish government


were there and for them it was a major landmark on their long, long


march for what they think is independence - remember, many have


been in it for 30 to 40 years. Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon spoke


dispassionately, almost as if they wanted to take the political grand


standing out of it and speak as if there was nothing controversial


left, nothing was controversial at all from the way they were speaking,


speaking about it as if it was a technocratic now from now to


independence. I think the danger for the Better Together campaign, the


pro-union campaign is that as the campaign goes on, they will be


sounding more and more negative, and many pro-independence people will


see this as a simple choice between the sunny optimism of the


possibility of a new start, as they see it, and the can you remember


amongonly fearful caution of the Curmogeolnly fearful caution of the


Better Together, and people are perceiving it that way. And It had


to fall to several of our team to drill down into the white


It is a big moment in the independence debate, and I think


people will enjoy reading. It's going to be a substantial mark in


our politics. I would say the most important political document in


Scotland's history. Described in some quarters as the most


significant document in Scottish history. The other great analogy is


to the declaration of independence. Ultimately, at the heart of this


debate, there's only one question, or one choice: do we, the people who


live and work in Scotland, believe that we are the best people to take


the big decisions about our future? This is a brochure for a country


that doesn't yet exist - an independent Scotland. A 650-page


travel guide to try and tempt people to live here. Many opinion polls


suggest, for plenty, they don't yet wish to be here. This brochure will


try to change that. The guide book is clear: an


independent Scotland would keep the pound.


We've putting forward an objective position of why a sterling area is


not just in the best interests of Scotland but the best interests of


the rest of the United Kingdom. But critics watching on campaigning to


keep the union are simply not convinced. I think the most


significant area of weakness is the fundamental one, and that is what


currency would we use? If we didn't agree to the terms and conditions


like the Eurozone, a currency union, what would that mean? Would we have


our own currency? Join the Euro. They need to answer these questions,


and they've ducked it. Amongst the big stuff, the pound, the Euro-or


whatever it might be rattling around your pocket, Alex Salmond wanted to


set out some economic goodies he would promise as for him, so there


would be help for childcare, he would raise the personal allowance


for income tax, he would raise the minimum wage at least in line with


inflation. He would also cut corporation tax and cut the air


passenger duty - retail political offers rather than just a big


constitutional argument. But the question is how will this be


paid for? The general principles that were set out for reform of the


tax and welfare system in an independent Scotland were very


laudable but there was an awful lot more detail about areas where they


would choose to give money away, so in particular mentioning cutting the


corporation tax rate, cutting employers' National Insurance, and


reversing the bedroom tax that the current UK government has


implemented in the longer run, what there was less mention of in the


white paper is the fact that Scotland may have to face a more


challenging fiscal tightening over the next few decades than the UK as


a whole would. So what does our travel guide say about defence and


relations with the European Union? Well, it sets out that we will


continue to be a member of the EU. There's a view to remove Trident


within the first term of the Scottish Parliament following


independence, and Scotland would take its place as one of the many


non-nuclear members of NATO. Why do we think Scotland will be


welcomed into NATO? It's a North Atlantic treaty organisation. It


would have a slight difficulty if a large part of the territorial area


of the north Atlantic weren't part of NATO. But some are sceptical, and


think the nationalists are naive. 670 pages of assertion, uncertainty.


The much-vaunted legal opinion on our EU membership, noticeable only


by its absence. The brochure commits an independent


Scotland to create a new public service broadcaster. Scotland will


remain a constitutional monarchy, and there will be no border checks.


All of this isn't just about weighty fodder like the public finances,


sovereignty, and nationalism, what about being able to see Strictly


Come Dancing? Panic not, says Alex Salmond, that will still be on the


telly. What about using a passport to visit here or travel elsewhere


around the parish isles? You wouldn't need one. What about the


National Anthem. There wouldn't be one at first. That would be decided


after the referendum. Of of us watch Scottish football. I


know Alex Hansen is leaving Match of the Day, but not to watch this


regular slot, and have to be reduced to endless Celtic versus Rangers


games, that could be a deciding factor in the vote for some of us.


So plenty for people here to consider before next autumn's


referendum, and plenty of reading for those consulting this guide book


on Scotland's possible future. Earlier, I spoke to Alex Salmond and


put it to him that today's white paper was little more than a wish


list and won't necessarily deliver on a single promise. No, it is a


very substantial document that accounts to people not just how we


get to independence but perhaps crucially, and this is why it is a


game-change, of the sort of things we can do with the independent


Scotland once we have it, and the commits on childcare, pensions,


getting back to work, unbidding the bedroom tax - all of these are


things which are of huge interest to hundreds of thousands of families in


Scotland, they're a positive vision and that's why we will win the


campaign. They're a vision, and they will be determined by a lot of


factor before that, not least things, for example, currency union.


That is your plan A. You say you have no plan B. But currency union


requires the goodwill of the rest of the United Kingdom, and they may not


be minded to give you it. In fact, right now, they're saying it is not


an option. We put forward an argument as to why it is in the


interests of Scotland and in the interests of the rest of the UK to


retain sterling, the pound, as our currency. That option of course was


described as logical and desirable and Newsnight by Alistair Darling,


the leader of the no campaign earlier this year. I know he has


been got at by the campaign fever since, but nonetheless, at the going


to have to decide why he thought it was logical and desirable in January


but now argue, the opposite position. What we put forward is the


consistent argument that keeping the pound is as much in our interests as


in the interests of the rest of the UK, and on that basis it is a


reasonable proposition to put forward. If the rest of the United


Kingdom doesn't agree, then what happens? Because there seems to be a


situation where you're saying if they don't agree, then you may well


withhold the debt. Isn't that just a straightforward thuggish threat? No.


The arguments mutual self-interest and trade. England is our biggest


market; we're England's second biggest market. It would cost the UK


businesses ?500 million in transaction costs to try and force


Scotland out of a currency union. Secondly, we provide about 39


billion of protection for the sterling balance of payments from


oil and gas, it would knock a huge hole and sterling if that wasn't


available. Thirdly, Kirsty, it is an argument about assets and


liabilities: the Bank of England, sterling, is part of the assets of


the country. We are entitled to a share of the assets. This is as much


our pound as London's pound. It is certainly not George Osborne's


pound, and the reason that we have accounted for paying a share of t


liabilities, financing the incredible debt that George Osborne


and Alistair Darling have built up - Can you go into these negotiations


when you've already said, and it is not a gesture of goodwill, you said


you're going to cut corporation tax for up to three per cent, that will,


in order to try and put businesses a better position than they are in


England, that's not a gesture of goodwill, is it? I was going to


complete the point that we are saying we will accept the share of


assets. We are entitled to that, and therefore will accept a share of


finance and liabilities of the enormous debt that the two previous


chancellors have built up. On the question of corporation tax, we put


forward a competitive policy for Scotland. There have been many


countries - Belgium and Luxembourg, for example - shared a currency for


generations and had different rates of corporation tax because they did


what they thought was best for their economies and their countries.


That's a perfectly viable thing to put forward. Of course, the UK


government can put forward its taxation policies as it wishes.


That's the way you can handle these things: do what is in the interests


of your economy to generate jobs and investment. Let's take something


like Trident. What has been said in the Scotland's future is we are


going for the speediest, safe withdrawal of nuclear weapons from


Scotland, and you say it should be within the lifetime of the first


parliament, 2020. What if that is not the speediest, safest


withdrawal. Will you be prepared to delay? Safety will be paramount.


That's why we expressed the commitment in the way that we do,


the speediest safe withdrawal, but estimates have been provided for


that, including by Commons committees which have very short


timescale indeed. So much of this is comes down to Scotland voting yes,


that you might have to trade Trident for staying? Currency union. It


might be as crude as that? No, you know the position of a lot of the


Scottish public, the SNP, and the Green Party, and others well enough


to know that, for us, the nuclear weapons are something that must be


removed from Scotland as speedily and as safely as possible. Let's


deal with Europe now. What you're banking on is Scotland, an


independent Scotland, being a continuum in the EU. You can't


guarantee that, either. You may have to reapply, and if you do reapply,


you have to to have the unanimous say-so of the other member


countries. Spain might say no? Well, we put forward a position under


Article 48 which obviously is consistent with the advice we've


received from the Lord Advocate of Scotland which puts forward the


mechanism by which Scotland can continue as a member of the European


Union. Of course, there is a threat to Scotland's membership of the


European Union, and that comes quite clearly from the commitment by David


Cameron to hold an in-out referendum in the UK. That is the threat to


Scotland's membership of the European Union. This is all


predicated on a particular position of whoever is Chancellor or on the


question of currency, Trident. You can't deliver any of these things,


and elements like the bedroom tax, and childcare, they're promises that


you might not be able to deliver either? Well, obviously, we can bin


the bedroom tax. When Scotland becomes independent, we will have


control of our social security. We can decide not to have a bedroom tax


and do that in the first year. On the childcare, that's an interesting


debate to open up. We point out if we move to Scandinavian levels of


childcare, we attract far more women back into the worse workforce, give


people an equal chance to work, that generates up to ?700 million much


extra revenue. Right now under devolution, that will fall into the


maws of George Osborne. It will accrue to a Scottish exchequer and


make the policy affordable and sustainable. This is no more than an


SNP manifesto. If Scotland were to vote yes next September, then on 24


March 2016, you would have independence day, you would have a


general election less than six weeks later, you might not be in power?


We've not acknowledged that point, we embrace that point in the white


paper published today, and, of course, the whole essence of


independence is that people would have the choice. We would always in


Scotland get the government that we vote for as opposed to having


governments foisted upon us like at present which we didn't vote for.


Alex Salmond, thank you very much. Great pleasure, thank you. Boys are


predators, girls are prey - that remark by one teenager sums up the


findings of a two-year report into young people and sexual violence


published today by the children's commissioner for England. It makes


for some tough reading, pointed to thousands of cases of invisible


sexual abuse committed by children on children which the authorities


are missing. Those problems are greatest in parts


of the country where street gangs operate with impunity.


This film contains some strong language.


Hidden away in towns and cities, behind closed doors, and shut


windows, what is described by the Children's


Hidden away in towns and cities, behind closed doors, and shut


windows, what is described by the Children's Commissioner as an


"invisible problem, a disturbing reality".


A young woman considering, or even belonging to a gang faces the


possibility of rape. That can be rape and a relationship


or group rape. If a girl is easy, and they boast about possibility of


rape. That can be rape and a relationship


or group rape. If a girl is easy, and they boast about it, "I got this


girl" the friends are like, "I might as well have a go." They get


involved, tell their friends, and the girl is getting the name quick.


If you're seen as a slag, you can risk a lot with loads of different


men, she's not getting rid of that name, to every boy she will be


nothing but sex. Today's report is warning that some


forms of sexual violence are being completely missed by police, social


workers, teachers, everyone. Teenagers often face abuse not from


much older men but from other young teenagers, and much of the time,


that abuse is hidden away, well beneath the surface.


Michelle - not her real name - had just started secondary school when


she was taken in a park in East London by a gang of boys aged 13 and


14. It happened more than once. I was out with friends. Some of the


girls knew the boys, so they approached us.


As soon as I saw them, I had this kind of I don't know, impression


that they were not nice people and they were kind of aggressive. They


told us to get on the bus. We went to the local park and...


Then it just happened. I don't know how to say it.


Did you think of it as rape at the time? No. I didn't know what rape


was at the time. To me, it was just something terrible because it made


me feel upset. It frightened me. I said no.


But it wasn't a thing where they were listening to me, like I could


cry. I could scream. They wasn't ever listening. Did you ever come


forward and tell anyone about it? I didn't tell anyone. All the young


people knew it was going on. But they made out I wanted to do it.


And they didn't know the full story. But as far as me telling somebody, I


didn't feel like I could. Michelle's Nan eventually found out and two of


the gang were convicted. Certainliual violence is not just a


big-city phenomenon, but today's report based on two years of field


work by the University of Bedfordshire suggests teenagers are


particularly at risk in neighbourhoods like this one in


South London where local gangs have power and influence.


The authors spoke to 188 young people in six research sites across


England. Of those prepared to talk about sex, 65 per cent knew of cases


of girlsing pressured into sexual activity. 41 per cent identified


cases of rape; 44 per cent of gang rape. We are all trained youth


workers, social workers, we've got a lot of experience. We would very -


we were very genuinely shocked by the amount of sexual violence that


we were coming across. As time went on, we began to find that we were


accepting it almost as normal in a similar sort of way as the young


people were, and that really frightened us. Speak to teenagers in


places like this, and what comes across is just how routine that sort


of abuse can feel. Loads of stories like you will be at


a party, and you'll see one girl go through different boys, like I've


been at a party, and I've seen one girl go through about ten different


boys in one night. You don't know if that boy has drugged them in their


drink or spiked their drink, and then like they obviously take them


to the bedroom and then they get all their mates to do it. Would anyone


ever report it? No, because they're too scared because what about if


they threaten them while they're doing it, if you go to the police, I


will do it again but with different people, I am going to slap you up.


Not just that, if you report it, like not just could happen to you


but what could happen to your family, you get labelled as a snake.


Once you've got labelled as a snake, you're known as a snake, you can't


be trusted because you run to the police. You're just their little


like informer. You're nothing. You're just a snake.


The scale of this problem still is not clear, but the best guess is


that 5,000 young women are at risk of gang-related sexual violence in


London alone. There is no national figure.


Very loving, very safe to live in... Cherie Johnson grew up in


South London. Her mother spent time in prison for smuggling drugs. Her


dad was a well-known dealer. She qualified as a probation officer and


social worker, and now runs her own project helping other girls trying


to leave that ceremony environment. Girls have two roles: you are either


the victim of the group or you're a perpetrator with the group. So if


you're a victim, you will be used as a sex toy, you will be passed


around, you will be shared, you will be encouraged to hold drugs, store


guns, and stuff like that. If you're the perpetrator, your status is a


little bit more high. For example, the males in the gangs respect you a


little bit more. Just one in 12 of the young people


in the study said they would ever talk about or report an incident of


sexual violence. Young women often viewed abuse from boyfriends or


partners as simply part of life. Those victims were often seen as


having brought harm on themselves by their own actions.


Among some young men, there is a sharp distinction between


girlfriends who might be treated with respect and another type of


girl used for casual sex. Those connected to gangs would only speak


openly if we agreed to hide their identities.


You've got your hood, girls. Would you class as hood chicks? And your


wife which is a girl you keep at home and nobody knows.


You don't bring her involved or anything.


She's the one you treat nice. What is the difference in the way you


treat the hood girls and the wives in terms of the way they get


treated? It's the way you speak to them.


What you do after you finish after having sex with them. They don't


mean nothing to you. It is just there for convenience.


It could happen anywhere, just the boys chilling together, and they're


they're lying, you know, I want to get my Dick out, let's phone


whoever, phone someone and say, "Yes, we are here chilling, come and


suck our dicks." Then the girl will turn up, she will know what it is


before she even got there, so I don't know. It's like they think it


is cool. They don't see it as a problem.


If you're in a gang and you see a girl who is a slag, then you ask


them, are you on it? They will be like, yes, yes, yes, and then take


them wherever, in the block, you and your friends, and just lock them,


innit. I know people that have done it. They enjoyed it. What do the


girls say afterwards? Nothing. They just get ready and leave. Are they


upset, look upset, worried or not? Normal day to them, isn't it? If


they wear short skirts, high heels, belly tops, that's putting yourself


out there saying, "Look at me, come and lock me." Do they deserve to get


- Raped? Of course they do, not really, but if you're like that


every day then expect to get raped - innit. It might be the way they want


to dress. Yes, true, never know, though.


Of course, not all teenage boys living in estates will think like


that. These three are not directly connected to gangs at all but all


have grown up in areas where gang culture is strong, and losing your


virginity is crucial for your reputation.


In school mainly, like when you're in school them times, like there's a


lot of pressure on them times, and then if you haven't lost it as you


get older, people look at you like you've got no game, nothing like


this, and so it's embarrassing sort of thing. Another thing, if you're


in a gang and you haven't lost your virginity, if you don't have sex


with the girl, they're going to beat you up, like you're going to take a


beating, and you have to phone the beating, so you don't have no


option, no nothing. So basically you have to do it. That could be the


case even if the girl doesn't really want to do it? Yes.


Pressure to have sex has long been part of teenage life, but in pockets


of our inner cities, and even outside those areas, this report


argues a culture of violence and sex has emerged. It is a culture adults


know very little about that will have to change if young victims of


abuse are going to get the help they really need.


Joining me now is Isha Nembhar, a former gang member who now works


with young offenders, including those in gangs at Foundation For


Life, and David Lamy. First of all, in London alone, five girls, subject


to this kind of sexual violence and rape. Does it surprise you at all?


No, it doesn't. I've been working alongside Foundation for Life for a


long time now, and this is what the problem is. It has been the problem,


and the longer and longer it has been, it has been normalised as


well. But why do young boys have this attitude towards women, towards


girls? A lot of these young men, they don't have no role models at


home, first of all, so they've got a broken home. A lot of - nine out of


ten, they don't have father figures at home. They haven't got that


positive role model to say you must treat a woman like this. They know


right and wrong because they've got this one woman at home that's okay


and they rape others. Because some girls, as they say, put it out


there, they feel like they deserve it. David Lamy, you've written about


this before, but even since you've written about it, it seems to have


got worse, not better. Look, I think that the gang issue in Britain has


been going on now for, or the acceleration of it, for at least 15


years, and, frankly, it's getting worse. We have had reports, we had


one recently into the riots - nothing has happened. Where does the


problem lie in attitudes? Is it male role models or something else that


is driving this? Of course it's role models but you can do something


about it with mentors, and supporting young fathers. Where is


the sex education in our schools of any quality? It is totally about the


mechanics and not about the real life. That's how you intervene to


make a difference. These young women doesn't feel, one in 12 of these


girls wouldn't ever dream of going anywhere and reporting it. There is


no safe space for them to report it. Because the community let these


young kids do what they need to do and leave them to do it. They need


local schools, you know, projects like Families For Life, social


workers, the police, they need to have relationships with these young


people. It is interesting one of the young women didn't know it was rape.


That, frankly, is a regression in where we've come to understand a


woman's privacy, her intimacy, and the fact that her body is her own.


We've relessed, allowed that -- regressed, and allowed that to


happen and it is happening because schools are not able to grip this in


education. Families certainly are where they are broken, and we need


the intervention of all services working together to challenge the


idea that casual sex is fine. Are boys hearing this from other


boys? What do they do? Why do they think that this is normal behaviour?


Is it anything to do with online. What drives it apart from the fact


there are no male models? The media, a lot of young males are watching


porn on TV, so the way they feel they should have sex and treat a


woman is wrong, its violent, and the way they certain songs that they


listen to, I think that's got to do with it as well. I think two things:


where there's a turf war - and there is in some of these communities -


violence, status symbols, and, of course, sex and women defined by


that is what you get. That's why we've got to intervene to challenge


it, and there are cultural norms around grime, and popular culture,


the games industry that is driving this -- crime. Many of these young


people are exposed to nothing else. That's where it becomes a challenge.


The idea if there is an idea, there are charities of course and there is


work that you're doing, and there is work the young woman was doing in


the film, but for many people they report it, and the reprisals will be


horrific. Yes, there is definitely a culture of not grassing, if you


like. Yes. That gets back to policing, people's attitude to what


happens when you grass, who gets convicted, who doesn't, and the way


in which some of these communities are not just local they are


parochial - that's why you get the post code. Very, very small, your


life is very small. Literally, the gangs develops because a few streets


away another gang owns the turf. This phenomenon is American, it is


come to Britain in a real and deep way and it is now endemic. What will


it take to sort this out? It will take the whole community, schools,


police, local services to work alongside with males and females,


you know? You know, you need one-to-ones, you need intervention.


You need all of these things to stop this going on, really.


Is it because it is so localised and hidden that actually it takes


something like the Children's Commission to do a two-year report


to find out about it comprehensively or should it be known toe all of us?


It should be known to everyone. If we tackle this, like we tackle the


economy - That's about the will. That will solve the problem. Do you


think there is the will to make this a priority? No. We would have done


something. We are sleep-walking towards some of the worst scenes


that we see in the United States in this country, and the pace at which


we are challenging some of this, the fact that we are having this


conversation, and this has been on Newsnight on regular occasions, is


deeply worrying. Thank you both very much indeed.


The Co-Op Bank saga rumbles on, with police arresting two men today in


connection with allegations of supplying drugs to the bank's


disgraced former boss, Paul Flowers. I think that's 300. Let me check it.


20, 40, 60... The dramatic fall from grace of Reverend Flowers has


grabbed the headlines, but the Co-Op's financial difficulties


predated his arrival at chairman. The bank's disastrous merger with


the Britannia building society left it with ?500 million of bad loans on


its books, and a 1.5 billion capital short fall. How could this have


happened at the height of the banking crisis when regulators


should have been on their guard? Questions are being asked about how


the Co-Op was allowed to get into this mess, and how a man like the


Reverend flowers with in connection to no banking experience was allowed


to run the company. Lord Turner was chair of the now defunct financial


services watchdog, the FSA, when the Britannia merger and the appointment


of Paul Flowers all took place. He joins me now. When you approved Paul


Flowers as non-executive director at the Co-Op, what went wrong? That is


what the inquiry will have to look at. I mean, broadly speaking, the


story of the FSA on this particular issue of how we approved people for


a directorship or chairmanships was a process of continual change during


the four years that I was there, and we greatly improved the procedures,


moved to aggressive interviews, moved to more searching approach.


Now, I don't know where in that transition this particular event


occurred; it was completely different by the time I ended at the


FSA than we were at the beginning. I think it has fundamentally changed.


We've got to look at it again, and see whether there are lessons to be


learned about still further improvements in that. Having said


that, I think we should be very cautious of believing that the


problems of the Co-Op can be strongly identified with this


particular individual. There were lots of executives at the Co-Op who


had lots of banking experience, and let us remember that there were lots


of people with lots and lots of banking experience at the big banks


which went bankrupt, which failed, with far bigger impact on the


economy, in the UK and the US, in 2008. So we've got to be very


careful leaping in and staying just if behad good professional bankers,


we will solve the problem. We come on to that, because that makes the


task of whoever is sorting the wheat from the chaff very different if


they are faced with all these banking qualifications. Just on the


question of Paul Flowers, did his appointment cross your desk? No, it


wouldn't have. Again, I am pretty sure that that is the case. I don't


want to get into the details of that because it is subject to an


inquiries process, they will be exploring that, but it wouldn't


normally have been something. At this stage of a non-executive


director? I may have been informed of it, but I wouldn't imagine I


would have even been informed about it. One non-executive director of


what is a relatively small bank wouldn't necessarily or not


naturally come to the level of the Chairman of the board. That is


interesting because I think what we understand is as a non-executive


director, the person who dealt with that was a kind of case load worker


who looked at non-ex-ex, but but the time you became Chairman, we knew


the Co-Op was in a really difficult situation, and yet. I am not sure


that that is the case. I think again, I don't want to go through


the details of this, because this is something that should come out with


public information from the PRA itself, but if you actually look at


the very good description that Andrew Bailey, the head of the PRA


who was previously head of banking supervision at the - I think he


might have - Gave to the TFC. I think he might have interviewed Paul


Flowers. I am not sure that's the case, but I can't comment on that


because I haven't looked at the files, but he gave a very good


examine the to the TFC a couple of weeks ago of what occurred, and that


makes it plain that a lot of the problems of the Co-Op really only


became clear in the course of 2011 and 2012 when I actually think the


FSA did a very good job of making sure that the fundamental questions


were being asked before, and making sure they didn't go ahead with the


Veridat decision unless those questions were asked. On the vetting


procedure yourself, have you ever turned a candidate down? Yes,


they've been turned down occasionally. The difficulty is of


course when you have people not like Paul Flowers with such a limited


banking experience, but you're having senior bankers making massive


mistakes. I think this is the crucial point. The Co-Op is an


important issue, but it has not involved taxpayer support, and it


has not involved a deposit and losses, and it is not a massive big


bank. Back in2008, in order to stop depositor losses and a complete


collapse of the banking system, we had to put taxpayer money in the UK


and in the US into banks which had people with thousands and thousands


of years of banking experience. There was nothing about that banking


experience which stopped those banks reaching problems. What I think that


illustrates, actually, is that although we talk about these issues


of interviews and vetting, and licensing, I think they're less


important than some really structural issues about why the


banking system is unstable. When it comes to the takeover of Britannia


and the possible takeover of Lloyds, do you think there was pressure put


there for the Code to be successful? No, the FSA, I think, did its job


correctly. The FSA looked at the capital requirements in relation in


particular to the - They can look good for a challenger bank to be


won? Again, I think that has to be left to the inquiries, et cetera,


but you will say is the FSA quite clearly, as Andrew Bailey said out


in the TSC, did its job in relation to the Verdiac. It asked the right


questions. Moving on to the question of payday loans, the whole


application for payday loans doubled under your tenureship of the FSA.


Are you glad now the government has put a cap on it? Personally, I am.


The FCA only gets responsibility for anything to do with consumer credit


in March of next year. I remember saying to the board, and to my suck


severs, one of your biggest issues will be consumer credit, and I think


it is a very big issue for society, and I think we need to take some


pretty tough action. Thank you very much indeed. At its height, the


plebgate investigation involved 30 police officers and overall 1,000


statements, 500 exhibits and seized documents. Now, the former Chief


Whip, Andrew Mitchell, said he has been stitched up after just o of


eight officers under criminal investigation has been charged. That


is not the Downing Street police officer who claimed Andrew Mitchell


called eet police officer who claimed Andrew Mitchell called him a


"pleb". He is standing by his account, and the Conservative MP who


has always denied using the word is calling for the Constable to give


evidence under oath. As a press conference today, Andrew Mitchell


firm lip blamed police for the cost of his job and his reputation. I was


vilified relentlessly over 33 days with over 800 hate e-mails received


during the course of that first week.


Eight I and my family were driven from our home with as many as 20


journalists and photographers camped outside.


My children were followed by the press.


My 92-year-old mother-in-law was pursued in Swansea. I was spat at in


the street. I lost my job after a career


spanning more than 25 years in parliament, serving my constituents,


my party, and my country. Well, I am joined now in the studio


by the BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw. Danny,


first of all, we've just heard about the trouble caused for Andrew


Mitchell. However, of the affair damaged the police. This is very


damaging to the police. Whenever you talk to police officers about


plebgate, they sigh, they gasp, they're frustrated that such a minor


incident could do such damage to the reputation of the service. But,


today -- but today could have been a lot worse for police. You've got one


officer facing criminal charges, and the other disciplinary charges,


serious nonetheless, and the central account of the officer at the gate,


that remains in place. He is not facing criminal charges, he is not


facing disciplinary charges, and the Crown Prosecution Service and the I


wanted pen police complaints commission say we can't prove either


way whether he was telling the truth. Where does this leave the


Metropolitan Police police commissioner Bernhard hoeing Juanan.


He was heaviliorised today for undermining what Andrew Mitchell


said because he said he made comments which appeared to support


the experts very earliy on in the investigation. This raises questions


over his judgment of the matter. Is this the end of this? Are regoing to


hear a lot more of this? We will probably still be talking about it


in a year's time. We've got a criminal trial coming up; we've got


disciplinaries proceedings, and also the prospect of the after libel case


coming up between Andrew Mitchell and the Sun newspaper which tonight


has issued a statement saying effectively, "See you in court."


Toby Rowland, the officer at the centre of all this, has also issued


a statement tonight saying he stands by every word that he has said, and


he will, as Andrew Mitchell has challenged him to, take the oath and


swear by what he said in a court of law. Thank you very much indeed.


The publication of the Scottish government's blueprint for


independence meant Scotland got to steal of of the limelight today, so


we thought we would fish tonight south of the border. Colchester is


best known as the town destroyed by Boudica, but it was on the map long


before the Romans pitched up. We asked the residents there what they


made of this historic day. England doesn't get a lot more


English than Colchester, the oldest recorded town in the country, and


birthplace of John Constable, and Blur.


Not only have the people of Colchester been poring over the SNP


blueprint today, but there was a breakout at the town zoo.


ANSMIT (wolf howls) three wolves escaped. It's a perfect storm much


news - Scottish politicians and wolves. Their defensive and mark out


their ground by howling at each other. These wolves behave much the


same way. By this evening, much of the wolves


had sadly been put down, leaving one rogue animal at large.


The streets of Colchester are all but decertificatesed tonight. Is


everyone inside reading the SNP document? Or have they bolted their


doors against that escaped wolf? Lupus Lupus, so bad they named it


twice. We do have quite a big Scottish community here, so the


independence of Scotland, I think, would probably be of interest to a


lot of people in Colchester. We have an annual event called Scotland in


Colchester where we have pipe bands. Why on earth do they do that?


Because there is a huge Scottish community here in Colchester, not


only is Colchester the second largest guardries son outside of


Aldershot, so we have a lot of Scottish people who have been here


through the army, a lot of people came down from Scotland, at the turn


of the 19th century to farm here. What changed your mind about the


news today? It made me think are we doing the right thing or not, yes. I


don't like the idea of the break-up of Great Britain, quite honestly. We


are one island. It seems silly to sort of break it up into little


pieces again. I met the people there, and they're very different to


the people in the rest of Britain. I would say that they already are


fairly independent, and I think it would be a much more peaceful and


better situation if they were fully independent. I've lived in Glasgow


the majority of my life, and I've obviously had an experience of


living down south in England for a number of years, so I am very much


of the opinion that Scotland are in a position to contribute enough to


go independent. If opponents of Scottish


independence claim that the English are against it, our unreliable


evidence from very English Colchester is that they may be


crying wolf. Tomorrow morning's front pages,


giving with the FT: Royal Bank of Scotland faces criminal proceed into


SME cases. The Guardian claims of police lies


reignites the plebgate row, and the cross word master dies at 92.


The Daily Mirror and the Daily Express both have sensational


allegations about Nigella Lawson that she was off her head every day


for a decade. Saatchi's fury over the guilty secret, court is told.


The Daily Express says that allegations that Nigella was off her


head on cocaine, she took drugs daily for ten years, the court


hears. That is all for tonight. We leave


you with images from the latest exhibition of the National Maritime


Museum, Turner and the Sea. Good night.


Kirsty Wark talks to Scottish first minister Alex Salmond about his government's blueprint for independence.

Are the authorities missing thousands of cases of 'invisible' sexual abuse committed by children on children?

Lord Turner on the Co-op and the future of banking.

A policeman is charged with misconduct in the 'plebgate' investigation.

Colchester reflects on the idea of Scottish independence.

Download Subtitles