05/08/2014 Newsnight

A hammer blow to David Cameron, a Foreign Office minister quits over

the Government's position on Gaza. Our current policy on Gaza is

morally indefensible, that it is not in our interests, it is not in

British interests, and that it will have consequences for us both

internationally and here at home. Who won the first fierce low-fought

TV debate between Alex Salmond and Alastair Darling over Scotland's

future. Mr Salmond do you agree with David Cameron or not. I was going to

make another small point. Do you agree with David Cameron or not. Let

me answer your question. Do you agree with him or not, it is yes or

no. A deadly disease is sweeping through west Africa, do we need

radical solutions to deal with it. We need to think about possible

tools like experimental drugs and vaccines. The app that makes Twitter

look like War and Peace, it is Yo, I will be speaking to its creator in

words of more than two letters. Good evening, there is finally a

ceasefire in Gaza, but the reverbations of the conflict are

stirring a political battle within the British Government. It is rare

minister resigns on a matter of principle, but today the Foreign

Office minister, Baroness Warsi did just that in starkly critical terms.

She tweeted that she could no longer support Government policy on the war

in Gaza. And in a letter to the Prime Minister wrote that "our

approach and language during the current crisis is morally

indefensible and is not in Britain's national interest". The Prime

Minister said in response that he had been consistently clear and

calls for peace. Tonight the divisis seem to have beepened, with Nick

Clegg calling for a suspension of arms export licenses to Israel. We

will debate all of this tonight, but we have this report containing some

flash photography. Beneath the certificate Rhone facade

of Government, tension has simmered over Gaza for week, and today in

Westminster it finally burst into the open with the resignation of

Baroness Warsi. Over the last few weeks I have done everything I can

at formal and informal meetings trying to convince our colleagues

that our current policy is morally indefensible, that it is not in our

interests, it is not British interests, and it will have

consequences for us internationally and here at home. But in the end I

felt the Government's position wasn't moving, therefore I had to,

on a point of principle, resign. In her resignation letter to the Prime

Minister, the Baroness lambasted the Government's stance on Gaza.

Once a standard bearer in the Conservative Party's quest for

voters from minorities, the former chairman has become a political

headache. So why did the Prime Minister take such an uncritical

attitude towards Israel over recent week, risking her fury and that of

millions of voters. David Cameron has in the past, like in, likened

Gaza to a prison camp when he was leader the last time Israel was

involved in an intervention he described it as disproportionate,

he's not going that far any more. It might be that he listening a lot to

the regimes in the region. Very much less critical of Israel than

European Governments. Perhaps, because like Israel they see Hamas,

ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups in the region as more of a

threat than we do. There is division within the coalition over whether to

accuse Israel publicly of possible war crimes. Indeed Britain, along

with the US and Israel, may have been dissuading the Palestinian

Authority from taking its case to the International Criminal Court.

Well, the Palestinian Foreign Minister was there today and said

they are about to do that. But they haven't yet, and for so long as the

Palestinians don't go for full membership of the ICC there is

little chance of a war crimes investigation taking off. Using the

term "proportionate" or not using the term "proportionate" or

"disproportionate" is a highly sensitive political issue. The term

though not used in the 1977 Geneva protocols describes in ways that we

all understand what is one side and the other of the lawful line. It is

not an easy line to draw, in fact it is extremely difficult line to draw.

Once you say something is disproportionate, you are saying the

person who did that is acting unlawfully. Tonight w a ceasefire

taking hold in Gaza, evidence of the continuing fight within the

coalition. With the Lib Dems pushing for an arms embargo on Israel. I

believe that the export licenses should now be suspended, and working

with Vince Cable in this, it is his department in Government that

administers these export licenses, he and I both believe that the

actions of the Israeli military are overstepping the mark in Gaza,

breaching the conditions of those export licenses and that's why we

want to see them suspended, pending a wider review in whether they

should be revoked more permanently in the long run. And there is

another point where the Lib Dem leader differs from David Cameron,

seen here visiting Bethlehem, in labelling the Israeli action

"disproportionate" Nick Clegg has flagged up a belief that war crimes

may have taken place. A factory near Birmingham making drone component

force Israel was the scene of protests today. Under pressure, the

Government says licenses for arms sales to Israel are now under

review. The British fall-out from the Middle East conflict is just

starting. Its consequences could be legal, economic and above all

political. Joining us from Edinburgh is the

former leader of the Liberal Democrats, and here in the studio is

Douglas Murray the journalist and writer. First of all, do you think

Jose Manuel Barroso was right to resign? Well, if she felt as

strongly as she expressed herself in the letter I don't think there was

any alternative open to her. Let me say I agree with her judgment that

it is morally indefensible and against our interests, but I would

go further than that and say I think it is against the interests of

Israel as well. Because how can you build any kind of peace either

temporary or lasting, based upon the kind of film and the kind of scenes

we have seen on our television screens. Essentially what is

happening in Gaza is that the infrastructure is being

systematically taken apart. If that is the feeling of the most senior

Liberal Democrat to Nick Clegg, which it clearly is, he's not going

to resign, but isn't it rather surprising that no senior Lib Dem,

feeling so strongly, has taken the same road as Baroness Warsi? Each of

us make our own individual judgments about these things. But no-one can

be in any doubt for example that people like myself or Paddy Ashdown

has expressed ourselves as forcibly as we could. If I could pick up on

the point the piece raised. I'm in no doubt that what happened is

disproportionate. And we will come on to that. Very well. Let me just

bring in Douglas Murray now. Do you think that Baroness Warsi's

resignation is harmful to David Cameron in all sorts of ways? Not at

all. It is fairly well known she has been a bit of a nuisance to him for

some time, she has been running effectively an independent policy on

a whole range of things which are areas to do with social cohesion and

to do with the anti-extremism agenda, which are very much

parallel, but different from those of the Prime Minister. Are you

saying they are destructive? Oh yes, and many people who have worked with

her and many people and voices inside the cabinet and others have

been quoted saying, before today, how destructive those parallel

policies were. Is her voice one that has echos within the wider country?

Certainly it has echos in the divisions of parliament, that is

clear with from what was just said now. She must be assuming that

people take different opinions in all sorts of things, she must be

reflecting a different opinion in the country? It is possible, I mean

it has been said for a long time and fairly well known that Baroness

Warsi wanted a Ministry of Her own, she didn't get one, it was clear

time after time she wasn't going to get one. Are you saying it is sour

grapes? It is interesting, she has been trying to create herself as

effectively the minister for Muslim, that has been a very noticeable and

I think a highly sectarian move on her part. This move and resignation

at this point, and let's remember as Israeli troops are withdrawing from

Gaza, it is timing and very clear it is a cynical and personal move for

future career prospects. If I may say so that is rather a personal and

cynical take. There are divisions in the country. Whatever the motives of

Jose Manuel Barroso let me make clear I think the real issue is the

substance here. And whatever reason she gave to us, if she had been so

offensive to David Cameron then he had the opportunity to ask her to

ten down at his most recent re-- to step down at his most recent

reshuffle. You said the substance there is different language being

used and Nick Clegg has talked about disproportionate. You said what

happened in the school last week, when the Israelis hit the UN school

last week was a violation of international law? I believe that to

be the case. What would you do about it? The question is whether or not

it can be referred to the International Criminal Court. As was

pointed out in the piece that because Palestine is not a member,

hasn't signed up then the pollability possibility has been

made more difficult. If you want to do it independently you have to

achieve a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. So

the reality is not there. Which you would be pretty certain the United

States would oppose. I'm accused of doing something wrong by attributing

motives to Baroness Warsi, and he's attributing motive to the state of

Israel and an entire country, people have to be careful in positions like

Ming and Baroness Warsi have to be extremely careful at times like

this. And Baroness Warsi speaks to it, there is a grassroots movement,

particularly in the Labour Party movement, of young Muslims in this

country who feel very whipped up by this, and people like Ming Campbell

and Baroness Warsi have to be careful before they start accusing

the nation state of Israel of war crimes. They are crimes going on and

committed by Hamas, a terrorist group, and it is very noticeable in

this whole debate we do not hear from the Liberal Democrat party or

from figures like Baroness Warsi the condemnation of the terrorist group

Hamas coming out of the mouth of the beginning of every statement. I will

do that now, I did indeed on the occasion when the Foreign Secretary

made a statement? The House of Commons. It is wholly unacceptable

that Hamas should use rockets in an indiscriminate way. Do you think

Israel should be allowed to defend themselves from Hamas. This is not

Alastair Darling against Alex Salmond, I regard it as wholly

unacceptable, but it is equally wholly unacceptable for a country

like Israel, which has the most sophisticated defence capability at

its disposal should take action which has the effect of putting the

lives of innocent women and children at risk, more than at risk. Can I

just turn one other point in Baroness Warsi's letter talked about

the consequences of what she says policies in Gaza and radicalisation

here in the country, she talked about that having consequences for

years, do you agree with that? Remember that's precisely the

warning that was given to Tony Blair on the eve of the military action

against Iraq. It has also been publicly stated by the Intelligence

Services in this country that they are much concerned about

radicalisation. That being... It is saying agree with my views. I will

finish my point even if Douglas Murray won't listen to it. Briefly,

let him finish. I'm just saying this, radicalisation is something

which presents the most clear and imminent danger to the security of

this country and anything... Ministers shouldn't be helping to

whip it up. Do listen for heaven's sake, anything which adds to that or

brings any encouragement to that radicalisation, is wholly against

our interests and security of any of our citizens. Including accusing

Israel of war crimes. No sooner was the referendum of Scottish

independence announced than negotiations about who would and who

wouldn't take part in TV debates kicked off. Alex Salmond, the first

minister of Scotland would only debate with David Cameron, he

refused, the SNP held that line for a long time, but six weeks away from

the vote Salmond has sparred with Alastair Darling, in the Better

Together campaign in a two-hour televised debate. It ended half an

hour ago, here are some of the highlights. Making the case for

independence is the First Minister Alex Salmond and making the case for

the union is the leader of Better Together, Alastair Darling, please

welcome them. For more than half of my life Scotland has been governed

by parties that we didn't elect at Westminster. And these parties have

given us from everything from the poll tax to the bedroom tax, and

they are the same people who through project fear are telling us this

country can't run our own affairs. Let's say with confidence, with

pride, with optimisim, no thanks to the risks of independence, and let's

have the best of both worlds, not just for us, but for generations to

come. How can we build a just society when we have policies

imposed upon us from Westminster that Scottish MPs voted against but

did not have the power to stop, so my vision is for a prosperous

economy but also for a just society in Scotland. I want you to do

something that will be really difficult, I want you to contemplate

for just one minute the fact you might be wrong. What is Plan B. If

you don't get a currency union, what is it we are going to have had

instead, please tell us we need to know. I will do something more

difficult than contemplate that I'm wrong, I'm contemplating you were

right last year when you said it was logical and desirable. I believe you

still think it is logical and desirable that last year was before

we were in the campaign period, and therefore during the campaign period

you, George Osborne, the unionist parties, have to engage in project

fear and tell people that something that was logical desirable last year

isn't this year. Any eight-year-old can tell you the flag of the

country, the capital of the country and its currency, I presume the flag

is the saltire and the capital Edinburgh, you can't tell us what

currency we will have, what will an eight-year-old make of that. David

Cameron has said supporters of independence will always be able to

cite I examples of small independent economies across Europe, it would be

wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another successful

independent country. But do you agree with David Cameron on that?

Small countries do have to make sure they balance the books. Do you agree

with him, everybody has to balance the books. Your own figures we have

a much bigger deficit at the time you want independence from the rest

of the UK, that would mean difficult decisions which you are not prepared

to face up with. Do you agree with David Cameron or not I feel like

Jeremy Paxman and Michael Howard here. You are more like Michael

Howard than Jeremy Paxman, you are not answering the question. Far too

much of the debate has been characterised by guess work, blind

faith and crossed fingers, that is no way to decide the future for our

children. Voting question is ambition over fear, telling the

world that Scotland is an equal nation that carries itself with

belief and confidence, this is our moment, let's take it. Elements of

the debate there from earlier tonight, joining me from Glasgow we

have our guests. Here in the studio is Isabelle Hardman, from the

Spectator live blogging the debate tonight. On points, how do you think

that went? I think actually it was no game-changer for starters. We

have had a group of young voters here all night who all say they are

more undecided than they were at the start. It was successful for

Alastair Darling to the extend that the subject matter continued to be

money, pensions, currency, all the aspects to an extent which would be

favoured by the unionist cause. And Alex Salmond didn't manage to get

the values, the reasons that anybody would really want to have an

independent Scotland as firmly at the centre of the debate as Alastair

Darling managed to get money. So I think to that degree you would have

to say it began to move Alastair Darling's way. But having said that,

I think there is no silver bullet in the argument or in the debate and it

will be the conversations people have around it that matter. Did you

get the sense it was a moment tonight where six weeks out this

actually would have energised a lot of people in terms of taking part in

the debate? I think so actually, I was in the hall admittedly in the

cheap seats up the top, but it did feel quite electric at points.

Particularly in the cross-examination when Alastair

Darling cross-examined Alex Salmond and visa versa. That is when it

really came to life. And overall I think you know Alex Salmond is an

experienced television performer, he was much slicker and confident,

Darling was very nervous initially. Over the cross-examination things

came to light and Darling came to light and we got into the

substantive issues. It is those issues that a lot of undecided

voters are interested in. On the substantive issues, did you get a

sense no matter if you are for or not, a lot of people south of the

border couldn't see sadly is Scotland very much feels like a

different country? That was certainly the impression that Alex

Salmond wanted to create, particularly in his closing

statement. He talked about Scotland being a more equal country and that

could be the impression it sold to the rest of the world. I think this

is part of the SNP's campaign in general. It wants to create the

impression that Scotland is separate. And to a certain extent it

has succeeded in that, whether or not Scotland votes to go

independent. As was said, on the hard questions, the economic

questions, where there aren't any silver bullets there were very, very

strong exchanges, on the question of currency, and also on the question

of being in or out of Europe. A sense that these, you know, they

talk about in the end of the day it will be people voting about identity

or whatever, these are hard-headed economic questions aren't they?

Absolutely, and they are both issues on which Alex Salmond and the yes

campaign has never been particularly strong. I thought Alastair Darling

did particularly well on dissecting his position on the currency union.

Very curious for Alex Salmond to raise the European Union and go

after Alastair Darling on that point. Because again, as I say, he's

not on strong ground there. What the debate did was highlight that

actually after two years of this referendum debate, two years in

which things have been thoroughly raked over, Alex Salmond and the yes

campaign are no further forward on the EU and the currency union

question. Leslie, it is always a problem isn't it in whatever the

referendum is, when there is bed fellow that is don't otherwise

agree, you have Alex Salmond harrying Alastair Darling to agree

with David Cameron's view that Scotland could be a successful small

country, and Alastair Darling found himself in a position of not wanting

to agree with David Cameron? That's true, and that was a kind of wobbly

moment for Alastair Darling. As was the fact that when he was asked for

two definite powers that would be given to Scots if they voted no, he

came up with road tax and then some devolution of income tax. Now today

we were told there was a new devo more proposal agreed by the three

unionist parties. That decision of more devolution welfare wasn't

brought to Alastair Darling, that should have been brought up more.

There are your perspective, blogging here in London looking at this,

where what are the big issues and the big points of contention do you

think? The main take away from the debate was the currency union. That

was where Darling was particularly strong. Hammering away asking the

same question again and again. And the audience helped him, they were

confused about Salmond's position and Plan B, whether he actually had

one or not. Salmond doesn't want to state whether he has a Plan B

because he wants to give the impression that Better Together are

cobbling together half truths and misquotes and all their warnings are

campaign rhetoric. It also looks as if he hasn't thought about it. Among

the other issues pulled out tonight there was oil, immigration, social

justice and so forth, how do you think that the tenor of this debate

and the areas covered will inform the next one? Obviously both

participants will take away from that what they perceived were their

weaknesses and their advisers perceive as weaknesses and work on

that. Alex Salmond came across at points as frivolous, he has a

terrible habit of dredging up newspaper cuttings and off the

record things, and aliens he appeared frivolous on that point and

will avoid that the next debate. Darling missed a trick by not

setting out a clearer vision for after a no vote. It is a problem in

any campaign if you are saying Better Together and interpreted in

Scotland as a no vote. And Alex Salmond getting trapped on that the

positive reasons what you would say would come out if indeed on

September 18th Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. What do

you think Leslie would be one of the big things that will happen. Will it

return to the issue of currency, people are passionate about this?

Here is the thing to say. Actually the whole pro-independence campaign,

like myself. I'm not a member of the SNP or a formal member of the yes

campaign. There are many political parties voting for yes, but far more

people who are no political parties at all. Tomorrow there is a mass

canvas of Scotland by the radical independence campaign and they are

looking at ten areas where actually no party has actually bothered to

canvas for several generations, these folk aren't registered to

vote. There is a huge grassroots movement going on here, that is

something very difficult for the classic media to get hold of and

perhaps even the official campaigns, because it is beneath the radar. To

me it is transformational and change always happens like that. A Guardian

poll taken straight after the debate put Alastair Darling at 56 and Alex

Salmond at 44. Is that what it looked like to you? I think so,

partly because Salmond didn't perform as well as he could have

done. Do you think he was too tricksy on the questions? The stuff

about aliens and the right side of the road was irrelevant, and

actually he really needed to have a clear win from tonight. And even if

you think it was debatable whether or not he won, that is bad enough

for him. Thank you very much, we can go now to Alan Little, who joins us

from Glasgow. What was the atmosphere like from where you were

watching it? Can you hear me? We will come back to Alan a little

later, as soon as we have sound attaching us to Glasgow. Now camera

five here I can go to you, thank you one of the unique things about the

referendum on Scottish independence is 16-year-olds can vote, for

another viewer in tonight's debate we went to meet some of them. A

group involved in Generation 2014, a BBC Scotland project to track young

people's voting intentions. They have never voted in a national

election, but the independence referendum has given 16 and

17-year-olds in Scotland their chance. How will these lovers of the

selfie, the social media generation vote? I travelled to Glasgow as

tonight's debate loomed, to find out. First stop, Motherwell where I

met a political ingenue and undecided voter Jessica. I think now

it is getting so much closer to the vote everyone is so interested in

it, and everyone is talking about it a lot. Even when we were out at the

weekend and things it will always turn to the conversation at one

point. This is where you get your information about the referendum?

Pretty much. It is where everybody will, my age, will probably find out

most things. Forget newspapers and television, this generation heads to

social media as it weighs up how to vote. I'm on Facebook nearly 24

hours a day. Usually I will just go on and it will just be there. This

is about the debate, do you recognise that man? I know Alex

Salmond quite well. What about this one? Not too familiar with him.

Alastair Darling. So everybody, there is a really important debate

going on tonight, does anyone know what it is? Yes. Yes. Brilliant, you

are all very clued in. These under-18s are on a council-run

course learning about entrepeneurialism.

How many are going to vote yes, who will vote no who is undecided? I

have got a few deal-breakers, mainly the EU-NATO issue. Because Scotland

currently is part of the greater UK we are also under NATO and the EU

subsequently, and if we were to leave then both bodies have said it

would be very difficult to reapply, and it could take up to five or

eight years to get back into the EU. As a 16-year-old you are worried

about that? Yeah. Because I think growing up it is like a backing

almost of kind of having a bigger body behind the country rather than

just, if you want to be independent you don't want to be on your own at

the same time. Whether university tuition fees would stay free in a

future Scotland was another big question. These youngsters were

enfranchised by Alex Salmond but the polls show more plan to vote no

rather than yes. Some say because the social media generation are more

linked into the outside world. They are the first generation that has

grown up always with networked computers, they use social media,

they talk to people elsewhere, they order something from abroad and it

arrives within one or two days. It plays into their voting intentions.

Not that they feel less Scottish as such, but that they think less about

smaller scales. Borders don't make as much sense to them. Our last

young voter says she's not Scottish or British first just a human being.

I am glade that we have been given this vote, because ideally it is a

better future and I think, it is about our future and we should have

a say in it. It is daunting, I'm voting but undecided right now. I

don't have that long left to make a decision. There are around half a

million voters who like these three haven't yet decided how they will

vote. So what did they think of tonight's debate. I think it is

quite interesting and you do get to see both sides. I think it has been

really interesting at times, but it can be boring because it is like

repetitive, they keep asking the same questions, he keeps giving the

same answers. No-one is actually giving you a definitive answer, you

are left there to sit and wonder by yourself. Scotland's under-18s make

up 2. 5% of the electorate. As the polls narrow, their voices will play

an important role in their country's future.

They just keep asking the same questions. I'm joined by Alan Little

and try to ask him the same way west again! What was the big take out

tonight? I can hear you now. If anybody had asked most political

observers earlier on this evening who they expected to win this debate

they would have said that Alex Salmond is the superior debater and

that is not even Alastair Darling's most fervent supporters would

concede campaigning of this sort on the stump is not his greatest

strength. You wouldn't have thought that from the way the debate went.

We learned that Better Together have bane donned old fears, hammering

away on the question of the currency will be perceived as negative, there

is a danger it might be counter-productive. We saw Alastair

Darling going for the jugular. We learned whether or not it is fair or

just the burden of proof is very much on the side of those who want

radical change and the yes campaign. On the currency question it is their

weakness suit and Better Together have really taken the gloves off on

that and on the question of the European Union membership. They have

abandoned the fears they had earlier in the year that it might not be

working that Scots might vote against it. And I think they will be

concluding tonight that they should keep hammering away at that, keep

pulling at that thread and that will get them over the finishing line.

And the nationalists must be looking at their strategy and saying we have

to have an answer to this currency question and pretty soon.

Thank you very much indeed. It is a measure of the fear of the spread of

the Ebola outbreak in west Africa that British Airways has suspended

lights to like beeria and Sierra Leone until the end of the month,

due to it has said to the deteriorating health condition in

the country. The outbreak has claimed 887 people across west

Africa, and the pace of the infection is fastest in Liberia, two

infected aid woers returned to the US have in isolation and given doses

of an experimental treatment to boost the immune system. Independent

voices are calling for the pharmaceutical industry to put more

resources into creating a vaccine to treat the deadly virus.

At the centre of this outbreak is fear and anxiety. Ebola has now

spread beyond the rural village where is it had been contained to

the vast coastal cities of west Africa. Sandra Smiley has just

returned from one of the capitals. There is a lot of fear and stigma

around the disease, and in some of the areas that are affected by

Ebola. The example of this is the story of Finda Marie, a 33-year-old

woman demonstrating symptoms of Ebola, her sister called in an alert

and she was tested and tested positive two, days later she died.

Some of the members of her sister's community blamed her sister for her

death because they said that if she had stayed at home then she would

have lived. There are a lot of misconceptions around healthcare

workers in these communities, and that is hindering MSF and other

NGO's work. Nearly 900 have died from the disease across four

countries. Ebola spreads by direct contact with bodily fluids, the

current outbreak is killing around half of those infected. Today a

second American missionary landed back in Atlanta for treatment. The

condition of both aid workers is said to have suddenly improved after

they were offered a highly experimental drug, not available to

locals. Tell us about these details that you have learned about this

experimental and some are even saying secret serum? US TV networks

have been full of talk about a wonder drug, they are attributing

any improvement to that alone, but that is impossible. One reason Ebola

generates so much fear is there is no single cure, advantage s are in

development with human trials in the autumn, not quick enough for some.

Tomorrow in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, a group of

influential scientist also call for treatment to be fast-tracked and

west African countries to be given the chance to try new untested

drugs. This time we seem to be in an exceptional situation, we have had

an epidemic that has gin going on for six months or possibly longer f

anything it is going out of control rather than being contained. And

rereally need to be thinking about other possible tools we could be

using here. Part of the problem is large drug companies have little

incentive to develop new medicines. The number of Ebola victims in

Africa is still tiny compared to major western killers like heart

disease and cancer. I think the question fundamentally is then also

about limited resources and how does a pharmacompany decide to spend its

money and where to invest. And also from our benefit is something like

heart disease, for instance, kills 160,000 people a year in the UK,

that is one every three minute, approximately. So you know if you

had a choice about where you can meet the needs best of a large

population, that is where you would invest. It may take concerted

international effort to find a cure with the World Health Organisation

taking the lead. Until then Ebola will keep rearing its head and

generating shock headlines in the west and genuine fear across large

swathes of the developing world. As mobile phones allow us to do more

and more, it is pretty surprising that the latest communications

sensation is utterly minimal. A free app launched on April fool's day,

which has been downloaded more than two million times. Has the single

purpose of being able to send to other users one word, unchanging,

uncorruptible, and that word is "yo", the app has been valued at $10

million, is it brilliant or bonkers. In a minute we will hear from the

man behind it. First we discover the joy of Yo.

The text-based communication we are all addicted to has a big

limitation, context. You can't see the sender's face, were they being

ironic, playful, serious, angry, passionate, despairing or something

else entirely. Perhaps the ultimate mobile app is this one, Yo, here is

mobile messages that is all context. What does it mean? You tell me. Wait

it works is simple, after I was downloaded the app I can find out

which of my friends have downloaded it, in this case my producer James.

I can send him a message, Yo, and if he wants he can reply. There you go,

Yo, if I want to send another one I can send it, Yo, did I mention this

was launched on April fool's day. If it is a joke it is a pretty serious

one, a million downloads and $1. 5 million of investment, and a

valuation of the company between $5 million and $10 million. Is it a

quays of Yo bubble, aisle lean is a partner in the venture capital

company, she says we are in very different territory than the late

dotcom bubble of the 1980s. You have mastive user communities and

audiences that people with monetise, you are seeing a lot of engagment

and people are coming back and using Yo again and again and again. There

is more fundamentals behind what people are doing and growth pushing

what is on the Internet and the app economy. I don't think it is the

same thing as last time. According to one study the mobile app economy

is now worth $25 billion a year, up from roughly zero six years ago. All

over the world there are thousands of teams working on the assumption

that we barely have begun to explore the potential of the app. Kate Rider

is developing Maven, a health app for women. One of the biggest

problems in healthcare is access, having health on your mobile device

means you can access it from anywhere, and you can connect

instaly with our product and healthcare providers, or

information, you can keep your health data on the phone so yeah, I

mean definitely mobiles are the centre of a lot of the innovation in

healthcare. But that doesn't mean that every idea will succeed.

Although there are some blockbusters, many, indeed most of

the 700,000 plus apps available on app stores fail to make money. And,

what about Yo, go or no? We will find out now, because joining me

from San Francisco we have our guest, the founder of Yo. Good

evening to you. It was launched as David said on April fools day, was

it first a light-hearted joke? No, it wasn't a joke. It was launched on

the 1th of April, but for us it was a fun app that we used and we saw a

lot of use case force it. We saw its potential right from the start. We

didn't think about all the use case, but from the beginning we

immediately saw that people liked using it. There are a lot of case

force it. How did you come up with the idea, did you do market research

or have a brain wave? It wasn't like that. My partner asked me to do a

app for him to test one big button that sends a push notification in

order to summon his personal assistant. In the beginning I

thought it was a silly idea and I didn't want to do it. Two weeks

later he came again and asked me to do it again. And then I remembered

that I have a friend which I basically talk with him in the same

manner, we text each other messages with no confident, for basically

texting each other "yo". I like that it started as a summons to a PA. In

the relatively early stages what applications apart from saying hi to

your friends might it have? We think of the Yo not as an app to say hi to

your friend, we think of it as platform. As a platform we open an

API and it is public, and other people can use it for a lot of

things. For example restaurants can use it to just notify the customers

when the table is ready instead of having the customers waiting by the

door. Websites that don't have an app can send notifications to their

readers. News websites can send notifications. This is basically a

communication platform. Currently there is no content, but the

notification itself is a message. Do you think it will make you rich? I

don't think about that currently. Thank you very much indeed for

joining us. It sounds like the stuff of science

fiction, send a spacecraft on a 12-year mission to chase down and

land on a comet in deep space. This is no Space Oddity, it is real. The

European Space Agency Rosetta spacecraft has been pursuing comet,

the comet for six billion kilometres. Tomorrow it will get

there. We go behind the scenes at Mission Control. Comets can be

spectacular objects. But to scientists they are amongst the most

valuable objects in our skies, because they can take us back in

time to the origins of the Solar System. The formation of the sun and

the planets left behind millions of bits of ice and rock spinning around

the Solar System and they are what we now call asteroids and comets.

That means that comets can help answer the fundamental questions

about our own earth's origin, and perhaps the biggest mystery of all

is where did all the water come from? It might sound outlandish but

the blue planet wasn't always blue. When the earth was a young planet it

was searingly hot and volcanic. And any water on the surface would have

simply boiled away into space, and with no water there could be no

life. But at some point water appeared back on the surface, we

became the blue planet and life could emerge in all of its glorious

diversity. But finding out where that water came from is a

fundamental question. And one we don't know the answer to. Some

scientists think there was water trapped under the earth's surface

which then seeped out. Many scientists believe that this water

comes from space. From the IC comets and asteroids that bombard earth,

left over from the beginning of the Solar System. How can we tell if

this water came from a comet. Surprisingly it is not impossible.

All water has an atomic significanture, little differences

that create a finger print. By carefully comparing the water on the

comet to that here on earth, we can tell whether they had the same

origin or not. But to do that properly we have to land on the

comet. Something never before attempted, that is what Rosetta will

do and why it is a supremely ambitious mission. Here at Mission

Control in Germany, I met up with the man in charge. Rosetta's flight

director Andrea. It has been a long journey, hell us how Rosetta has got

to the comet? The comet is flying relatively far away from the sun.

And our rockets couldn't deliver the spacecraft to such an orbit, we had

to use energy from planets in the Solar System to accelerate Rosetta

further and further out into the Solar System to reach the comet.

This takes time. So Rosetta has spent the last ten years spiralling

around the Solar System, flying past the earth, then Mars, then earth

twice more, using the gravity of the planets to nudge it into its deep

space orbit. Now we are on a trajectory that would fly close to

the comet, but we are not exactly on the same orbit around the sun, we

have match the two orbits. Without that the comet would fly-past? There

would be a fly by, a mission like many others that flew next to comets

but that is not what we want to do. We want to reach the comet and stop

there and orbit the comet. We had to slow down the spacecraft compared to

the comet and slowly approach it, and once we were there we could

start the mission. Tomorrow Rosetta will finally reach the comet and

begin its exploration. Why is it difficult to go into orbit around a

comet? We don't know anything about the comet, the shape, the gravity,

so we have to characterise all this. We don't even know the altitude

hour, it is rotating. How close with Rosetta get to the comet? We will

fly mid-September an area of 30kms and then country to 20kms if the

environment will allow it. We still have to explore. Exploring the comet

and its environment will initially be done by imaging it. And already

the images taken from thousands of kilometres away have thrown up

revelation about the comet's shape. We are surprised to see it looks

like two bodies sticking together. The most recent ones I have seen

make it look like a rubber duck? I like that a lot. It is a surprise

and we have to find out why the body looks like this. Just looking at the

shape model here, these image, it is hard to understand where you would

safely put down this landing. It is the obvious thing to go for the big

face here? The tricky thing is the sun coming up or going down. You

don't want to land in the dark? You don't want to land in the dark. The

lander will basically be dropped on to the surface from a few thousand

metres up, because the gravity on the comet is a tiny traction of the

gravity here on earth, it will take several hours to fall. It makes for

a soft landing but the very weak gravity also presents a problem.

Gravity is about 100 millionth of the gravity on the earth. To top it

bouncing straight back off the comet we have ice screw that is will dig

down as soon as the feet hit the floor. They are not just to secure

it, it will make measurements of the surface and measure the seismic

qualities of the surface as well. Even that part of the messing, just

securing it to the comet is science itself. One of the key tasks for the

lander will be to analyse the ice within the comet to see if it

matches the water we find on earth. Meanwhile, Rosetta will continue to

orbit, staying with the comet as it goes through its closest approach

with the sun r duesing vast plumes of gas and dust throwing into the

comet's tame we will reproduce the vast tail. Of the comet. It is a

risky mission, but if we knew it we wouldn't have to do it. It has huge

solar panels and you are flying in windy dons and constant -- windy

conditions, so constantly being forced away from the comet. With the

mission about to enter its most critical phase, after more than a

decade's work for many of the team, there is a palpable sense of

excitement amongst astronomers across Europe and at Mission

Control. For sure it is one of the most challenging space missions

ever. Nobody has ever gone to such an irregular body or active body

with the need of such a high accuracy of flying a spacecraft

around the body. It is new and unique in the history of space

flight. It is fantastic. That's all we have time for, good night.