13/02/2014 Newsnight

Get The Chancellor rode into Scotland bearing bad news, there

will be no currency union if Scotland votes for independence. And

he wasn't the only one being emphatic. If Scotland walks away

from the UK, it walks away from the UK pound. Scotland will not keep the

pound if Scotland chooses independence. It is not going to

happen and it is very important that everyone has that in mind when they

are thinking about how they are going to cast their votes in

September. That is clear then, so is there a Plan B? I will be asking

Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond. Also tonight our aid convoy

-- are aid convoys to Syria Trojan horses. These are the first pictures

to be taken of the protestors. Paintings by the artist Richard

Hamilton, inspired by Newsnight, as a major retrospective opens. He's

being lauded as the greatest artist of the 20th century. We have our

guests to discuss. Good evening. When it comes to

writing the history of the referendum on Scottish independence,

it might not be the politicians who command most attention, but a

Whitehall mandarin called Sir Nicholas Macpherson, in a highly

unusual move a the Treasury Secretary came out and says

categorically he strongly advises against a currency union as

currently advocated if Scotland chooses independence. We report on

the bombshell which George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander happily

dropped. England and Scotland have shared the

pound sterling for 300 years. In 1707 the old Scottish coinage with

thistles and lions rampant and its bruises and Stuarts was swept away.

We go back to Robert the Bruce here. That is a Robert the Bruce coin? A

penny from the 14th century. Yes. Might Scotland one day need to bring

this back? For George Osborne's audacious assault on the idea of a

shared currency post-independence has changed the debate here. So when

the nationalists say the pound is as much ours as the rest of the UK's.

Are they really saying that an independent Scotland could insist

the tax-payers in a nation it had just voted to leave had to continue

to back the currency of this new foreign country, had to consider the

circumstances of this foreign country when setting their interest

rates? Stand behind the banks of this foreign country as a lender of

last resort, or stand behind its foreign Government when it needed

public spending support? That is patently absurd. Supporters of the

union took it as a welcome boost to a hitherto lacklustre "better

together" campaign. I was pleased the UK Government came out with such

a strong stand and made it very clear. Voters want to be clear about

the position of each party in the future. So, in the event of a "yes"

vote, would you be arguing for Scotland to be kicked out of the

sterling zone? I would still want to be in the currency union if that was

what happened. I would still choose to be in it. And I guess from my own

perspective, being managed by Westminster and being, I guess, in

some way part of the union is what I would be voting for any way. Would a

"yes" vote force the Westminster parties to reconsider? Of course the

nationalists insist, it is obvious. So it is your belief despite what

they have said today these three Westminster parties, in the event of

a "yes" vote, would just change their minds? Absolutely. I think it

is political posturing, it is clear to me that in the cold light of day

when Scotland votes "yes", that there will be a currency union. It

is described astrological, and business would describe it as

sensible. George Osborne can claim a united Westminster front, with

support today from both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. There's a

high risk in that. It is easy to antagonise Scotland with perceived

diktats from a distant London elite. The SNP are recent converts to the

idea of a sterling zone. Until a few years ago their policy was to ditch

the pound and join the euro. But there is a third way, the countries

that are most comparable to Scotland are the Nordic countries, just

across the North Sea from here, and three of the four of them, Sweden,

Denmark and Norway, have kept their own independent currency. Denmark,

for example, pegs the value of its krona to that of the euro, thus

ceding some national sovereignty. That doesn't mean it is not an

independent state. Why has the SNP not grasped this thistle of an

independent Scottish pound? It seems to me that they have no Plan B and

have never thought of what was bound to happen, and that was a "no", from

whichever Government was in Westminster. And I can't explain why

someone who is as clever in politics as Alex Salmond didn't understand

that you had to have a contingency. And there is no problem in having a

separate Scottish currency. I mean we have bank notes at the moment,

why we don't print a separate Scottish currency I don't

understand. Scotland abandoned its separate currency 300 years ago and

few now openly advocate the return. George Osborne has told Alex Salmond

he needs a Plan B. But in telling the Scots bluntly what they can and

can't have, he's also taken quite a risk. The Scottish First Minister

minister joins us from Aberdeen. Good evening Alex Salmond. So it is

over, there will be no currency union if Scotland votes for

independence. These are not words of a politician, but a Treasury

mandarin. This is economics not politics? Let's deal with the three

politicians first, I see it as bluff, bluster and bullying. Bluff

because what they say now and what they say the day after a "yes" vote

are two entirely different things. A bluster because we are expected to

believe that the George Osborne idea is to tell businesses in England

next year at the UK general election that he wants to impose a new tax on

them of several hundred million for the privilege of exporting their

goods to Scotland. And bullying, because the days of Westminster

politicians dictating to Scotland are over. In fact, one of my

predecessors, a former First Minister, still a "no" voter at this

stage, described it as "threatening" behaviour today. I think it will

backfire spectacularly on the unionist politicians involved. Let's

put it in a different perspective. In the perspective of a Whitehall

mandarin who is not political but apolitical, he said it would not be

good for the United Kingdom. He strongly advises there to be no

currency union as the current position that you are taking, the

one you advocate. Part of the problem here, Alex Salmond, is that

you have said that you would take sterling but perhaps for a short, or

limited period of time, in the letter which I'm sure you have read,

he makes the point that if you would be a more permanent position on how

long you would take sterling for there might be wriggle room and an

answer. Why won't you negotiate and say we will take sterling for ho, 50

years? I'm perfectly happy to negotiate now, but the only talks we

have had have been technical talks with the truly independent Bank of

England. I have been delighted in the progress of these technical

talks. Could you say you are happy to negotiate now and could you say

that? For more than a year now the Scottish Government has been saying

to Whitehall, not just the mandarins but the politicians, we would be

very happy to negotiate the guidelines. Very happy indeed. They

have been saying they won't pre-negotiate on anything. And the

on exception to that of course two years ago was Mervyn King. I'm very

happy to have these negotiations. I thought the wriggle room in Sir

Macpherson's letters surely was where what he said as currently

proposed. The wriggle room was coming from the senior mandarin, I

thought rather than anything else. I just want to absolutely talk to you

about this quite specifically, you are very clear, you want to be open

and up front, you say there are negotiations. Are you prepared to

put an actual time limit on sterling, are you prepared to say

that you would take sterling for 40 or 50 years? If you look at the

framework that the fiscal commission working group proposed, it was

designed to last the test of time. There is a range of options of

currency options for Scotland, the best one we think for Scotland, and

indeed for the rest of the United Kingdom, is the sterling zone that

we accepted from the fiscal commission. Would you put a time

limit of say half a century? We are perfectly prepared to have these

negotiations now. So you won't say it? You asked me first if we would

have negotiation, I said yes, I have also pointed out if you look at the

fiscal commission working group, it is not a temporary arrangement as

proposed, as for the argument, incident low, that there are other

politicians who want to do different things, I mean I was in the House of

Commons when the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wanted to join the euro

and the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to, Gordon Brown, wanted to

keep sterling. That is part of the democratic process. But perfectly

happy to have these negotiations. In the interests of Scotland, and in

the interests of the people of England as well. Because I know that

George Osborne doesn't speak for Scotland. I actually think he spes

for the people or businesses of England who he wants to impose the

George Osborne tax on. You have said in the past if there was to be no

currency union there would be no paying up of Scotland's share of the

?1. Six trillion debt. If there is no currency union in the event of a

"yes" vote in Scotland, will you or will you not pay a share of the

debt? Our proposition is that we should have a share of the assets

and of the liabilities. That is what is fair and reasonable, that is our

proposition asset out in the White Paperment one of these assets is

un-- paper, one of these assets is the Bank of England, it holds title

of a third of UK debt at the moment. It is George Osborne who seems to be

suggesting that we are not entitled to a share that have asset, but he

wants to land us with all the liabilities. So you won't pay the

debt? Our proposition, which is in the interests we believe of Scotland

and the rest of the UK is to have a share of the assets and a share of

the liabilities. That is our proposition. It is George Osborne

putting forward the one-sided argument that we're not entitled to

a share of the asset, but wants us to be stuck with the liabilities.

Clearly that is not fair or reasonable. That is not fair, let's

assume you would pay the debt, Sir Macpherson says in the letter that

even if Scotland did not pay its share of the ?1. Six trillion debt,

it would still be better than having a currency union. It would still be

better not to have that money, than to have a currency union with

Scotland. The wriggle room is as proposed. I thought the interesting

thing about dragging a civil servant into this as a shield for George

Osborne, is what will Sir Nicholas Macpherson do when somebody asks him

for his advice to the Chancellor on the economic consequences of a

withdrawal from the European Union. Now we set this rather strange

precedent. But we're very happy to have negotiations and to clarify

these things so that the senior mandarin understands what exactly

we're proposing, because in some elements of his letter he seems to

misunderstand that very badly. Let's move on to what else was said, that

it is unbelievable that Alex Salmond wouldn't have a Plan B. Have you a

Plan B without currency union? The fiscal commission working group set

out a range of currency options to Scotland. We chose what they said

was the best option, which was to have a sterling area between

Scotland and the rest of the UK. The key thing we are looking at is not

to have transaction cost, not transactions costs for Scottish

businesses exporting to England, our major market, or English businesses

exporting to Scotland. But Denmark bears these transactions costs, and

Denmark is a different situation, as you look to Scandinavia for a lot,

Denmark has an independent currency pegged to the euro, why not have an

independent currency pegged to sterling? I was explaining that, the

fiscal commission looked at that option, it is a credible option,

nobody is saying it is not. But the best option is not to have the

transaction cost, which would be important for Scotland but also for

businesses for England. What George Osborne and Ed Balls are saying is

they are going to have an Ed and George tax of several hundred

million pounds of businesses in England for exporting to Scotland.

That is incredible and nobody in England will accept that. Which is

why I think... We are in a situation of five months from a referendum,

where you are making threats about assets and liabilities as much as

George Osborne might be making threats, people in Scotland want a

detailed argument, and the problem is that on something like the debt,

what Sir Nicholas Macpherson says, if you do not take a share of the

debt then your credibility in the markets and everything else will not

be substantial. You will attract higher rates of interest and so

forth, it is not a tenable position to hold? Well can I put it forward

again, our position is we should share assets and liabilities. It is

George Osborne who is suggesting the one-sided position that some how we

are not entitled to a share of assets, but he wants to stick us

with the liabilities. I'm sure Nicholas Macpherson was working for

me as opposed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer then he would see the

fairness and justice of that position. As for interest rates in

terms of the international market place, you mentioned the Nordic

countries, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, they all have lower

interest rates and bond yields at the present moment than the UK. The

UK interest rates are not unreasonable, but they are not as

God as many other -- good as many other countries at the moment. Let's

get the issues into perspective. The British suicide bomber who died

in an assault on Aleppo last week, Abdul Waheed Majid. He came from

England on an aid mission. It is said that no-one should travel to

Syria, even for humanitarian purposes, that should be left to the

big agencies, the Red Cross and others. We will discuss that with

the head of a Croydon-based Muslim charity and my guests. Richard

Watson, how many fighters are going from the UK to Syria this way or

generally, first of all? The security sources have been

consistently briefing over the last few months that the figure is in the

low hundreds, I take that to mean 100-1200. I detect a change here.

Security sources are saying it is not the low hundreds it is the

mid-hundreds, I suggested to my sources this might be as many as 500

British fighters in Syria, they said that still might be a bit high. But

a realistic estimate, I think, is 300-400 fighters Syria. It was an

accelerating trend? That is what is concerning the authorities at the

moment. Tell me more, what do we know about the Crawley suicide

bomber? His wider family say he was delivering aid in Syria. I think if

you look at his connections, it is quite interesting. I saw that the

former leader of groups out there is he was known to them. I understand

he travelled to Syria with a relation of somebody who is linked

to an old generation of Jihadists from Crawley, and don't forget that

Crawley has always been a centre for extremism in some respects. It was

the origins of the fertiliser bomb plot in 2004. Some people were

arrested in that. I think these wider Jihadist links are quite

interesting. People will be concerned about this idea that the

convoys are Trojan horses? Yeah, my sources are saying that convoys have

been used as a way for some fighters to enter Syria to join the conflict.

But I should say, that the vast majority of people who go on convoys

simply want to deliver aid to alleviate horrendous suffering in

Syria. I mean, it is undoubtedly true, I think, that some

opportunists have used convoys to get into Syria. One of my sources

recently told me, for example, about an aid convoy, he said that seven

individuals had not come back on the return journey. To I think that

raises big questions about vetting and raises big questions about

counting them in and counting them out. But by and large, how are

getting into Syria? It is a variety of means. Aid convoys I'm told is

one route. Another route is fighters will go directly. I'm also told it

is very rare that fighters will go out from the UK to join one of the

groups like news a and ISIS -- Nusra and Isis. They will be introduced to

the right people out there and appetites whetted for Jihad in the

theatre. To discuss these aid convoys travelling to Syria and

borders I'm joined by the MP for Crawley Henry Smith, and Imam Qasim

Rashid, whose chaired the tion have sent convoys to Syria. How concerned

are you about infiltration on convoys? I think it is the great

responsibility of charity organisations to make sure whenever

they want to take any steps into volatile situations they do proper

checks they do due diligence they follow the governance and procedures

and everything. If trustees have made proper policies and procedures

and they are following their criterias, then I think that is a

minimising the risks. There are some individual who is would make the

most out of these opportunities to go through the aid convoys. Having

these checks will minimise. Henry Smith says, having convoys where

seven people didn't come back. It is not illegal, they could have decided

just to stay on. But you were so concerned you wanted it stopped? It

is important that when people want to give aid to Syria and we have

seen obviously some appalling images on television and appalling reports

of the violence in that Civil War, people naturally want to assist. But

at best it is very dangerous for people to go to Syria unless they

are backed by a serious aid organisation. At worst it can be

tempting for those who may become radicalised. Therefore what I'm

saying is, yes, we need to support the refugees in the Syrian crisis,

but we should be doing that through the well-established organisations

such as the Red Crescent, the UN Human Rights Commission, and other

such organisations. But presumably the charities commission, and there

are particular rules and regulations about vetting the people on convoys,

you are concerned that doesn't always happen? I think Syria is

probably the most dangerous place there is in the world right now. It

is not somewhere that people should be loading up a few trucks and

driving across the continent to get there. This is a very serious Civil

War and I think really the Governmental support and the main

international agency support are the ones who should be delivering that

much-needed aid to refugees. You would disagree and say convoys

should go? I would say, yes, convoys should go. The problem is those

convoys which go themselves without the backing of any registered

charity organisation, which has a track record of delivering aid in

these types of situations. Or going through a charity which has not

submitted annual accounts to the Charity Commission, which cannot be

verified, that is where the problem comes. There clearly has been

breaches, there clearly have been problems, and it may not be with

your charity, of course, but you can't stop someone who gets there

then becoming radicalised when they see what's there, can you? No you

can't, but you can try to reduce the risk by having a process and

policies in place. I think more important it is for donors to

understand the importance of donating wisely. If they donate wise

low, whether it is the goods, items for aid convoys to take with them,

whether it is money? Do you think there would be anger if the convoys

were banned that people see this is actually very little that is being

done and this is the way it can help. Do you think it would be a be

proproand anger directed towards people who wanted the convoys

stopped? There would be anger, if there is action there is reaction to

that. Henry Smith? It is not about stopping aid. But the convoys? I'm

proud this country is the second-largest donor to help the

refugee crisis from the Syrian Civil War. It is important for the safety

of those going to Syria and also important for the security of this

country that aid should be delivered through organisations that are best

able to cope with, as I say, probably the most dangerous

situation we have in the world at the moment. But one of your primary

concerns though is the idea that people on the convoy could either be

using it as a Trojan horse or be radicalised when they get there That

is certainly the case and it was borne out with the event last

Thursday. In my constituency, community relations are actually

extremely good. There is good relations in terms of different

faiths and different ethnic backgrounds and I'm actually very

pleased to represent such a cohesive and yet diverse community. What is

important though is where within individual faith communities there

may be signs of some individuals becoming radicalised, that actually

those communities work with the police to ensure that extremist

views don't gain traction. Thank you very much. Deeply regrettable, that

is how the US officials described the freeing today of 65 detainees

from Bagram prison. America maintains the prisoners were

responsible for killing Afghan civilians and security personnel as

well as coalition troops. But the Afghan authorities, who now run the

jail, say the evidence is too flimsy to continue holding the men. The

Afghan President went so far as to call the prison a Taliban-making

factory, turning ordinary Afghans against their Government. The BBC

has one of the few journalists allowed inside Bagram's prison

walls. Bagram maximum security prison outside Kabul, some have

called it Afghanistan's Guantanamo Bay. It holds what the west calls

"high-value targets", many caught on the battlefield. Originally built

and run by the Americans, up until now no film crews have ever been

allowed in here. It has takep me more than two years to try to gain

access to Bagram prison, it was only when it fell into Afghan control

that I'm now able to gain access. But as foreign military forces

withdrew, a toxic political row has erupted over what to do with

hundreds of suspected Taliban insurgents imprisoned here. People

who have come out of the prison have told me this is a prison where they

take innocent Afghans and turn them against their own country and

Government. The Afghan state has been released detainees, men the

Americans say have whether or notted blood on their -- have blood on

their hands. We are releasing people back into the fight who are clearly

hardcore terrorists. Most of these men have been held without trial,

some for many years. So what is Bagram Prise some actually like? The

facility is located just outside the sprawling American-controlled Bagram

airbaseled Bagram airbase. US forces still oversee the sell blocks

housing foreign combatants and they are also in control of all the

extensive perimeter security systems. When I arrived it was

visiting time. Many of these civilian families had to cross the

country in order to spend less than an hour face-to-face with their

incarcerated male relatives. The prisoners held here are considered

by western forces to be among the most dangerous Taliban insurgents in

the country. My guide was a General, the Afghan Army commander in overall

charge of this place. When I was shown around Bagram Prison, it still

held some 1,443 inmates. This place was only built four years ago, and

the overall conditions here were much better than anything I had seen

elsewhere in Afghanistan's notoriously run down penal system.

The prisoners were allowed one hour of outside exercise a day. There was

even an orchard for the inmates. But there are strict rules here and

breaking them is not visible. Especially not rule number 7. Bagram

is also a very intrusive facility, all area are covered by CCTV. The

roofs of cell blocks are grid, all prisoner communications are

monitored, very obviously so. I first met some inmates in the

medical wing. All those waiting for treatment in this nearby holding pen

were shackled, hand and foot. This man said he was a journalist and

poet from Kandahar and arrested in a night raid by US forces. He has been

held here for almost six months. TRANSLATION: If they have got

evidence against me they should show it to me. They should take me to

court and imprison me for life f that's what they want. But how can

they just stick me here in Bagram for no reason? Detention without

trial was the complaint I heard again and again here. And this was

the visiting area where the families finally got some face-to-face time

with their relatives. None of the prisoners are disabled. The

wheelchairs are used to ferry the inmates around because the leg irons

they wear means they cannot walk at speed. After the visits finished I

met an inmate's mother. TRANSLATION: I feel very pad because of all this

worrying about him. We are suffering from psychological problems now. Is

this life? His father, brother and sister have come to see him and we

all leave crying. It is very difficult to see our son like this.

There are lots of others like my son here for God sake they should think

about them, we have only had one court hearing in a year-and-a-half.

This man said he was 16 and a simple shepherd from Helmand prove VIPs.

The US military says he's a Taliban co-ordinator who conducted bomb

attacks, they say he was caught with a firearm and insurgent propaganda

on his mobile home, and tested positive for four types of

explosives. Whatever the truth, after a year in Bagram prison his

views on the United States have crystallised. TRANSLATION: I hate

them because I'm here for no reason, of course I hate them, I want to ask

them what is my crime, if they told me clearly what evidence they have

against me, I wouldn't mind if they kept me for ten years, no-one is

asking about that. I have to spend a year from my mother and father, what

is the reason I ask. All the men here were among the 65 prisoners

released today. The Americans are furious saying they represent an

enduring security threat. Does this decision make you angry? It makes me

angry and sad, angry that we're going to release people back out

into the fight who clearly are hardcore terrorists. Many of these

people were caught red handed, the tests on their fingers of explosives

on their hands. It is not as if this was questionable, these are the

hardcore of literally maybe over 1,000 that we have already released.

But the Afghan authorities say that much of the evidence presented by

the US military is insufficient to take to court. So the prisoners are

being let go. It is an issue being taken personally at the highest

political level. There is no denying that there are elements of Al-Qaeda

and the Taliban still in that prison? No doubt, that there are

also criminals who have been taken, but the number of those people who

are criminals, real criminals, are a minority. And then, the very

presence of this prison is against the of a gap constitution. Against

all Afghan laws, and against the sovereignty. The men praying here

have all now been released. But the Afghan decision to set them free in

the face of strong American objections is a further example of

just how sour the relationship between these supposed allies has

become. You can see more of that report on Our World: Inside Bagram

Prison shown on the BBC News Channel on Friday 28th of February. The

polls have closed in the Wytheshawe by-election. The seat has been a

Labour stronghold held by all that time by Paul Goggins until his

sudden death in January. His party is expected to retain the seat

easily, but who will come second? That is the big question. What news

do you have at the count? Kirsty, what we are hearing is that Labour

are going to win this evening and fairly comfortably by all accounts.

It hasn't been a high turnout, I gather today on election day, but

probably about half the postal votes have been returned. And what you can

see behind me are people who are basically verifying the postal votes

before they get round to counting them. There are quite a large number

of postal votes in this constituency, 17,000, probably about

half of those have been returned. But the sense I'm getting from all

the parties is that Labour's on clear course for victory today. But

it is the second position, I think, that people are really interested

in, because UKIP have been napping at the Conservatives' heels in polls

that were taken in the campaign? Yeah, absolutely, that really has

been the question all along. How well will UKIP actually do in this

contest. We wait to see. I think it is going to be fairly close between

UKIP and the Tories. UKIP are confident they are going to come

second here tonight. But let's be honest about this, UKIP have come

second in several by-elections already this parliament. So I think

what's more important here is how well have UKIP actually done as

opposed to just whether they have come second or not. How far behind

Labour are they, how far ahead of the Conservatives are they. UKIP

want to establish themselves here as a party which is seen as the natural

opposition to Labour in the north of England. I think if they want to do

that then they have to have a pretty convincing result here this evening.

And UKIP are looking fairly gloomy. They don't look like a party on the

verge of victory. The deputy leader of UKIP who I was speaking to

earlier was pretty angry, he feels that Labour has pretty much stitched

this up through the postal vote, getting those returned.

When you ask people who is the greatest artist of the 20th century

the names tummingable out, Francis Bacon, Barbara Hepworth, Henry

Moore, Lucian Freud. What about Richard Hamilton, labelled the

father of the Pop Art Movement, constantly changing times and

interrogating the world around him. He's finally having his moment.

# I'm so tired # I haven't left a wink

With it's one of the most iconic LP covers ever designed. The Beatles

White Album was the work of this man, Richard Hamilton, a forerunner

of the Pop Art movement and exploring the world. There was

something artificial about painting, something. If it is essentially

photographic, then it ought to be. And not a paint the simulation,

because that was art. He died in 2011, but his star has never been

higher. Today a retrospective of his work opened at Tate Modern, showing

off his he can electic images and collages, including this painting,

The Citizen, inspired by the Newsnight documentary into The Maze

Prison in Northern Ireland. I have a fear that there is a possibility it

will be shown as support for the IRA and the methods of the IRA. In fact

I'm against violence of any form. Many in the art world now feel that

such was Hamilton's influence on 20th century art, it is time for him

to be considered the century's greatest artist. So is his mark

greater than Lucian Freud or Francis Bacon? Who, if the market is the

arbiter, win hands down. Joining me now is Lucian Freud's famous muse

Sue Tilly, Guy Jennings and representing the state of Francis

Bacon and author is Dr Rebecca Daniels. First of all, I would say

that in the wider world his passing was hardly remarked upon, and now we

have this explosion? I think inevitably he doesn't carry the same

weight as Bacon or Freud because the market hasn't paid as much attention

to him. The thing about Hamilton and the thing to understand about him,

is how influential he was. Not only the father of Pop Art but concept

actual art, installation art, he designed the White Album and some of

the most iconic images that we recognise every day in our lives. Do

you think that by that label, the label that we all knew about is

being the father of Pop Art, it was reductive and did him more damage

than anything else? It is important but not the most important thing

about him. When you see the exhibition you see his absolute

range? You look at what he did in the early 50s, he made the first

great installation, growth and form was fantastic in 1951, that was Is

Tomorrow. Then Hamilton basically said all art is thinking, he

developed concept actual art, the Young British Artists are all down

to Hamilton. Do you think the difference for Lucian Freud it was a

more emotional thing, do you think Richard Hamilton is the greatest

artist of the 20th century? It is difficult to compare, they are

completely different artists, Lucian was a painter and testing himself on

how to paint, you know, rather than Richard. He wasn't commenting? He

wasn't a commitment calm person, really all his paintings were about

training himself and testing himself to be able to do things more

difficultly. Mr Hamilton was making things that were politic KACHLT I

don't think he cared about being a painter, he wanted to make images

that said what he was thinking. The thing about Francis Bacon, he

referred back to classical art, he was much more the idea of what

thinks as painter, a raconter, out on the lash a lot, he actually

confirmed to that idea of the wild artist? That was only one side of

him. He was extremely serious painter and he controlled his output

very strenuously. If he didn't like painting he would simply destroy it.

That resulted in having only roughly 580-odd paintings in existence. And

hence they are rare in way. He changed his style quite often in

different decades. I think that is part of the reason they are so

highly sought after and going for so much money. Do you think the market

is any real judge? It is a judge in the sense that it is people wanting

the paintings. If you watch the bidding this evening, it started off

in $2 million jumps and at the end they were going up in hundreds of

thousands, they were desperate obviously to go to every last penny

they go. This was the Portrait of George Dyer, executed in 1966, and I

think we can see it now, it went for ?42 million? It is an extraordinary

painting, and one of them from his best periods. When you look at the

application of paint on it is extraordinary. There is a green

brush stroke which is the outline of his arm and it goes up to his

shoulder and swooshs into his mouth. The painting is complex layers of

paint. What Bacon and Freud had is the idea of the articulation of the

paint on the canvas, but then of course Richard Hamilton had that

too? He had it, he was painter but he also enjoyed working in many

media, he liked mixing his media, oil with collage, graphic work, he

was a great print maker. He enjoyed the technique and mastery. He grew

up from the design side of things. He was influenced by the bah house,

he -- bah dbahaus, he wanted to take inspiration from that. This is an

image of something quite differen this was his comment on modern

popular culture? That is what he relished, he had a wry sense of

humour about it, he neither endorsed popular culture or denounced it, he

had a wry sense of humour about it. In a way Lucian Freud is almost a

national treasure, Francis Bacon, people are a bit scared of him, but

from Richard Hamilton, he wasn't a prophet in his own land but much

more fated abroad. This exhibition is going to Madrid after it has been

in the Tate, there is wonderful examples of his work in the Museum

of Modern Art in New York. He's less well known in England than the wider

world. Obviously so many amazing portraits that you sat for Lucian

Freud, people commented, did they feel emotional about him as an

artist and what you had done? I don't know, I took myself away from

it really, I think it is not me. What did they say about him, did

they feel an emotional connection with what he was doing? Yeah, I

think he was one of the most fascinating people you could ever

meet. I used to say to him please be on the TV, you are so fantastic.

Please don't. Is that one of your favourites? That is my favourite

one, I'm glad that is the most popular one, some I'm not so keen

on. What does it meal to be a muse of one of the most popular painters?

It is very weird, I don't like to think of myself as a muse. I think

of muses to be wafty and thin and falling in love with the artist,

none of that was me at all. I don't know why he liked me really. We were

so lucky to have so much time and seeing how he worked. But Francis

Bacon was a much more darker connection with the people that he

was painting. And it wasn't really for them that he was doing it, was

it? It wasn't totally dark, he painted people he knew very well.

But he didn't paint them from life, he painted them from photographs. In

that way there is a connection with Hamilton he was using contemporary

media in his painting. It is just he did it then very privately in his

studio, away from the person. Both all artists of course have

influenced other artists, of course, but in the case of Richard Hamilton,

in case he was the artist's artist, because you could talk about all the

Young British Artists and all the concept actual art that followed,

and also because of his champions of Duchamps and what he gave people? We

are talking about the greatest artist of the 20th century, but the

greatest British artist of the 20th century. I think it is Picasso,

Duchamps and war hole. He brought him to the English-speaking world,

but for him nothing else would have followed. He's your favourite? I

love them all! Thank you very much indeed. And here is a wonderful

portrait of Richard Hamilton, it is the work of David Bailey who will be

talking to me, taking me around his major exhibition, Stardust for

Monday's Newsnight. And we just finish with tomorrow morning's

papers. We have climate change leading to global conflict yet the

politicians squabble. That's all from us tonight, on the

eve of Valentine's Day we will leave you with a reminder of Torvill and

Dean's romantic skating routine to Ravel's Bolero, which the pair are

recreating on the ice at Sarajevo 30 years after taking the gold of the

winter Olympics. This is it recreated by animation.

The weather is a little quieter for a time overnight. Here comes the

next storm,