:00:00. > :00:12.The rebels, the Russians and the Ukrainian leader agree a safe. I
:00:13. > :00:19.give an order to the chief of my military to declare a ceasefire. In
:00:20. > :00:23.half an hour's time. But will it last, we speak to one of the few
:00:24. > :00:28.women to heads a country within the alliance.
:00:29. > :00:32.And this: IMF research has recently found, this may not surprise you
:00:33. > :00:38.that the typical forecast missed every single recession, all around
:00:39. > :00:42.the world, every single time. An unblemished record of complete
:00:43. > :00:51.failure. Why are we so bad at seeing the future, these two might know.
:00:52. > :00:52.And a treat from our proms preview season, the celebrated clarinettist,
:00:53. > :01:11.Dimitri Ashkenazy. Good evening, it was an outcome of
:01:12. > :01:16.sorts, 1300 miles away from the NATO summit in Wales Vladimir Putin
:01:17. > :01:20.orchestrated a ceasefire between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian
:01:21. > :01:23.separatist. It endorsed an exchange of prisoners, the creation of a
:01:24. > :01:27.humanitarian corridor for refugees and aid, but offered no clarity at
:01:28. > :01:31.all in the future of the region. It is hard to imagine Putin's timing
:01:32. > :01:36.was anything other than a desire to draw the light and the impetuous
:01:37. > :01:40.from NATO, who announced a new rapid reaction spearhead force to boost
:01:41. > :01:45.eastern defences with a no so rapid timetable. It will become
:01:46. > :01:52.operational at the end of next year our diplomatic editor has been
:01:53. > :01:57.speaking to the NATO secretary-general.
:01:58. > :02:01.The summer ended as it began with the Ukrainian issue cast ago shadow.
:02:02. > :02:05.There was a new rapid Reaction Force implicitly to come to the aid of the
:02:06. > :02:08.Kremlin's next target, since Ukraine's President was here this
:02:09. > :02:17.afternoon, conceding he has had enough. Calling an immediate
:02:18. > :02:27.ceasefire. First of all I welcome any attempt to stop the bloodshed
:02:28. > :02:34.and the violence and if this ceasefire is implemented in good
:02:35. > :02:39.faith is could be the first step in a constructive political process.
:02:40. > :02:43.One of the headline outcomes I suppose from the summit is this new
:02:44. > :02:48.high-readiness tax force, you have called it a spearhead for FLAIT NATO
:02:49. > :02:51.reinforcement for members who feel they are coming under pressure from
:02:52. > :02:56.Russia. We have heard this afternoon it won't be ready for a year or me,
:02:57. > :03:05.will that impress the Kremlin? We have already taken steps and we will
:03:06. > :03:15.now enhance these measures to reinforce our collective defence.
:03:16. > :03:20.But we hear that the enforcement of the new high readiness force isn't
:03:21. > :03:24.started, is it one of those things that NATO like the principle but
:03:25. > :03:29.look at their shoes when it comes to contributing forces? At today's
:03:30. > :03:32.meetings I heard the first announcements of contributions to
:03:33. > :03:40.this spearhead force and that's much sooner than we had expected. So it
:03:41. > :03:46.demonstrates there is very clear determination to take the steps
:03:47. > :03:54.necessary to provide effective deterrents and defence. On the
:03:55. > :03:58.margins of this event, at the fancy dinners and in the hidden
:03:59. > :04:03.bilaterals, the crisis in Iraq and Syria absorbed the leaders too. But
:04:04. > :04:07.for all the Cummings and goings of John Kerry and Barack Obama, signs
:04:08. > :04:11.that forming a grand coalition against the Islamic state is not
:04:12. > :04:17.easy, despite the urgency of the cause. For Islamic extremism in
:04:18. > :04:20.Syria and Iraq, what has impressed me this week is just how the
:04:21. > :04:27.alliance has come together and realised we have all got to help
:04:28. > :04:31.tackle this. We hear people using phrases like "there won't be
:04:32. > :04:35.military action involving the UK for weeks at least", is that realistic
:04:36. > :04:44.or could it happen sooner than that? There is a huge amount done already.
:04:45. > :04:50.We have used the RAF to drop humanitarian supplies, both on mount
:04:51. > :04:54.Singa and relieving the siege at Ameli. We have been asked to do
:04:55. > :05:00.these things and we are willing to do that. We have a new Iraqi
:05:01. > :05:03.Government, we hope being formed next week and the alliance committed
:05:04. > :05:06.to making sure we do everything possible to help that new Government
:05:07. > :05:12.in the decisions it is going to take, to help halt the advance of IS
:05:13. > :05:19.and roll it back. If NATO sounds like an organisation launching its
:05:20. > :05:24.sell simultaneously towards -- itself simultaneously towards two
:05:25. > :05:29.and three different issues, the capability on display has to be paid
:05:30. > :05:33.for. That means reversing decades of defence cuts and signing up to a new
:05:34. > :05:42.ten-year target. This summit has been a clear demonstration of
:05:43. > :05:50.resolve, unity, cohesion and Governments from 28 allies have
:05:51. > :05:54.committed to reverse the trend of declining defence investment. And
:05:55. > :05:58.also to develop the necessary military capability to address these
:05:59. > :06:02.new security challenges. You know that some of these commitments, so
:06:03. > :06:07.called, are interpreted in a pretty elastic way politically by some of
:06:08. > :06:12.the members. When they talk about a 2% target for defence spending as a
:06:13. > :06:16.proportion of their economy, in ten years time, do you think
:06:17. > :06:24.realistically that NATO members will meet it? I think we will now turn a
:06:25. > :06:29.corner and you will see a gradual increase in defence investments and
:06:30. > :06:33.I would say the turning point is Russia's aggression against Ukraine.
:06:34. > :06:38.Because that has been a wake-up call, a reminder that we cannot take
:06:39. > :06:43.our security for granted. That has led to a reconsideration in many
:06:44. > :06:49.capitals, as regards defence spending. On his way home Barack
:06:50. > :06:53.Obama dropped in at Stonehenge. NATO's partisans like to portray it
:06:54. > :06:57.as monolithic in its resolve. But the impression of the past few days
:06:58. > :07:02.is of a group of leaders who have just about agreed on some new steps
:07:03. > :07:09.and now wonder how to sell those to their people.
:07:10. > :07:13.As well as becoming Denmark's first female Prime Minister, Helle
:07:14. > :07:17.Thorning-Schmidt shot to selfie infamy when she shot one with
:07:18. > :07:21.herself and Barack Obama controversially at Nelson Mandela's
:07:22. > :07:24.memorial. Now she's back with the subjects of a viral photograph as
:07:25. > :07:30.well as other leaders in the NATO summit in Wales. I went to meet her
:07:31. > :07:34.earlier. NATO has two big issues to grapple with, Ukraine and IS,
:07:35. > :07:38.addressing questions of what NATO is about, an existential question about
:07:39. > :07:44.what NATO is for. Can we deal first with Ukraine. A ceasefire set at
:07:45. > :07:47.5.00 tonight, will that then mean sanctions will start to be lifted?
:07:48. > :07:52.First of all to your question what is NATO all about, I think one word
:07:53. > :07:58.sums it up, it is about solidarity. And what we have discussed here for
:07:59. > :08:01.two days is basically how we show solidarity with the most vulnerable
:08:02. > :08:05.countries, that is closest to the Russian border, this is what we are
:08:06. > :08:10.going to do. We have shown resolve in order, in terms of doing that.
:08:11. > :08:14.And in the coming weeks and months we will see that we are showing that
:08:15. > :08:19.kind of resolve. Do you need to have sanctions imposed still? It is all
:08:20. > :08:23.to Russia, I mean there's, now we need to see action on the ground.
:08:24. > :08:27.There is a lot of words in this conflict, now we need to see action
:08:28. > :08:33.on the ground, that will determine whether we need to turn up the
:08:34. > :08:38.sanctions or not. It is interesting Putin signs the agreement and yet
:08:39. > :08:41.doesn't admit to troops in Ukraine, proof that you cannot trust him? I
:08:42. > :08:45.don't think it is so productive to go into that discussion, the most
:08:46. > :08:51.important now is to underline that if there is a negotiated agreement
:08:52. > :08:56.to stop using weapons then that is what we are hoping for. We will of
:08:57. > :08:59.course still prepare the sanctions and what we need basically is not to
:09:00. > :09:06.have more words but see action on the ground. Yesterday the Lithuanian
:09:07. > :09:09.President told Newsnight if you don't deal sufficiently with
:09:10. > :09:14.President Putin over Ukraine, next time it will be a NATO country on
:09:15. > :09:16.President Putin over Ukraine, next Russia's border? There is a big
:09:17. > :09:20.difference between being a NATO country and not being a NATO
:09:21. > :09:26.country, and I'm sure that the Russians can see that difference as
:09:27. > :09:29.well. What we have done at this meeting is really confirm our
:09:30. > :09:35.solidarity, not just in words, but also in action, and that means, for
:09:36. > :09:40.example, that we will have strengthening our NATO headquarters
:09:41. > :09:45.in Poland. We are doing air policing already, Denmark is contributing to
:09:46. > :09:50.that. And other ways of showing that we have that solidarity and that we
:09:51. > :09:55.are prepared to show that to our most vulnerable member states in
:09:56. > :09:59.NATO. Let's turn to IS, David Cameron was very firm last night
:10:00. > :10:07.when he talked about the fact that countries that paid ransom allowed
:10:08. > :10:12.IS to wreak havoc, is he right? He is right, ransom is partly what is
:10:13. > :10:15.funding the IS, and we have to be very serious about the question. I
:10:16. > :10:22.think he's right to raise that question. But we had a Danish
:10:23. > :10:27.hostage who was a photo journalist, Daniel Rayortison with James Foley
:10:28. > :10:30.in Syria, he came home alive. Did the Danish Government pay a ransom?
:10:31. > :10:34.We did not, we never deal with terrorists and never pay ransoms to
:10:35. > :10:40.terrorists. We will never do that. But we know the French do, how can
:10:41. > :10:45.NATO act in concert when a key member does that? This is a relevant
:10:46. > :10:48.discussion. I appreciate the British Prime Minister bringing it up. I
:10:49. > :10:51.just want to say clearly from the Danish side we never deal with
:10:52. > :10:55.terrorists, we never pay ransom to terrorists. And finally, as a Prime
:10:56. > :11:00.Minister and particularly as a female Prime Minister you are always
:11:01. > :11:03.under scrutiny, so have you taken another selfie with Barack Obama and
:11:04. > :11:07.David Cameron here at the NATO summit? I haven't, I didn't feel the
:11:08. > :11:15.need to because I have one already! Prime Minister, thank you very much!
:11:16. > :11:19.Very good, I like that! Just to mention the fans of Borg can find
:11:20. > :11:23.out what the Danish Prime Minister thinks of that show on our YouTube
:11:24. > :11:29.channel. Ahead of the NATO summit President Obama announced that the
:11:30. > :11:35.US had no strategy for dealing with Islam Islamic State, today he said
:11:36. > :11:39.they posed a real and long-term threat to the alliance and he and
:11:40. > :11:43.John Kerry would be working to build a broader alliance to deal with the
:11:44. > :11:47.terror group in the region. Laura joins me now. First of all it
:11:48. > :11:51.was very much IS on the margin because the focus was on Ukraine?
:11:52. > :11:54.Thats That is absolutely right. There is clearly an ambition for
:11:55. > :11:57.action there. There were plenty of conversations taking place. The
:11:58. > :12:02.question of practicalities and the optics here. We understand that
:12:03. > :12:05.there is now a coalition of ten countries, countries like France and
:12:06. > :12:09.Australia who have indicated that they are willing to participate in
:12:10. > :12:13.some form of action. But crucially, for example, France expressed today
:12:14. > :12:18.going public that they would be willing to take action against IS in
:12:19. > :12:21.Iraq, but not in Syria. Also crucially important to America is
:12:22. > :12:26.that what someone in Government described to me as respectable
:12:27. > :12:31.regional partners are also involved. But significant today that the U
:12:32. > :12:38.Knighted Arab Emirates was at the NATO meeting. They are not a member
:12:39. > :12:42.but they were there, and they made a public statement saying unified
:12:43. > :12:48.action was very important. On the home front are MPs being canvassed
:12:49. > :12:50.very quietly about air strikes? There are conversations about
:12:51. > :12:54.willingness to take some kind of action. This is rolling the pitch
:12:55. > :12:59.rather than putting specific proposals or trying to tally the
:13:00. > :13:03.numbers for any kind of vote. There are two very important conditions
:13:04. > :13:07.for the UK Government. Like the Americans the UK is determined that
:13:08. > :13:11.you have to have respectable regional partners involved and also
:13:12. > :13:19.that a stable, or what looks like it might be a stable new Iraqi
:13:20. > :13:23.Government will be in place, there would not be sectarian leadership.
:13:24. > :13:26.In the diary, we have a significant British event the Scottish
:13:27. > :13:28.referendum on the 18th, it is unlikely the Government will push
:13:29. > :13:32.anything controversial before that. But that is a second order issue, if
:13:33. > :13:35.you like. The two other big conditions are ones that would have
:13:36. > :13:38.to be met and this is all before President Obama sets out his vision
:13:39. > :13:47.at the UN and that's not for another couple of weeks. Thank you very much
:13:48. > :13:51.indeed. If you had said at the beginning of the year that Brazil
:13:52. > :13:56.would hose 7-0 in the World Cup or the British economy would be the
:13:57. > :14:02.fastest growing in the G 7 you would have been laughed out of the room.
:14:03. > :14:04.These are interesting times, why do the forecasters not forecast the big
:14:05. > :14:13.stuff and get the little stuff wrong. We peer into the world of
:14:14. > :14:19.political and economic forecasting. Consider the vital human subject of
:14:20. > :14:23.economics and politics that so engage Newsnight's discerning
:14:24. > :14:27.audience. When it comes to such matters we're terrible at making
:14:28. > :14:33.forecasts. Why? Why is it that the fancy
:14:34. > :14:38.forecasts we keep hearing from the Government, City economists and the
:14:39. > :14:43.International Monetary Fund simply aren't very good. IMF research has
:14:44. > :14:46.recently found, and this may not surprise you, that the typical
:14:47. > :14:52.forecast missed every single recession, all around the world,
:14:53. > :14:58.every single time. An unblemished record of complete failure.
:14:59. > :15:01.Sometimes you just need a friend, someone close to you, someone plain
:15:02. > :15:13.speaking to tell you what everyone else is thinking. In this case it
:15:14. > :15:17.was the Queen, after the banking crisis she visited the London School
:15:18. > :15:22.of Economics and asked its great academics why did no-one see it
:15:23. > :15:29.coming? It is fair question, and not only for the economists, who
:15:30. > :15:34.predicted the Arab Spring, the drop in crime in Britain, the impact of
:15:35. > :15:38.the internet and the smartphone, the fall of the Berlin wall. Bad
:15:39. > :15:43.forecasts matter. Governments and businesses are always trying to peer
:15:44. > :15:47.into future. Forecast influences our foreign policy, the size of the army
:15:48. > :15:50.or police force, resources for school systems, border controls and
:15:51. > :15:59.billions flowing around the stock market. Why are forecasters so bad
:16:00. > :16:03.at their jobs. One reason is that the world is a complicated place,
:16:04. > :16:07.you can't see the future of Ukraine any more than you can see how many
:16:08. > :16:11.Conservative MPs will defect to UKIP. It is foolish to ask for
:16:12. > :16:17.predictions about the fundamentally unpredictable. A second reason is
:16:18. > :16:22.that when forecasters make predictions, they are not trying to
:16:23. > :16:26.see into the future. They are prone to bias. They are trying to say
:16:27. > :16:28.something original, or they are cheering for their side in an
:16:29. > :16:37.argument, or they are selling a product. Economic and political
:16:38. > :16:40.forecasts are like horoscopes, horoscopes aren't accurate because
:16:41. > :16:45.they are -- popular because they are accurate but they are engaging and
:16:46. > :16:52.seeming plausible at the time. We don't have to give up on the whole
:16:53. > :16:55.forecasting issue, a group of psychologists in America have been
:16:56. > :17:00.running a vast geological competition with thousands of
:17:01. > :17:05.participants. They have discovered a select group they call the "super
:17:06. > :17:09.forecasters", they are uncannily good at making predictions. They
:17:10. > :17:13.also know what can and can't be predicted. They know when they are
:17:14. > :17:20.speaking with insight and when they are just randomly throwing darts. So
:17:21. > :17:30.how do they do it? Here are three secrets to super forecasting. One,
:17:31. > :17:33.feedback. Forecasters make predictions about casualties in Gaza
:17:34. > :17:37.or the next move in Ukraine and they quickly see if the predictions are
:17:38. > :17:41.right. The feedback comes again and again, so the best forecasters soon
:17:42. > :17:47.learn what they can and can't predict. Two, work in teams. Super
:17:48. > :17:52.forecasters are even better when they are working in teams, they
:17:53. > :17:56.challenge each other. Three, prove yourself wrong. Super forecasters
:17:57. > :18:01.actively try to prove themselves wrong. They try to see the opposite
:18:02. > :18:07.side of any argument, probing their own thinking for weaknesses. To be
:18:08. > :18:11.honest, that sounds like exhausting, thanksless, anxious work, but at
:18:12. > :18:15.least now we might be able to see some things coming and that might
:18:16. > :18:22.please everyone. Governments, businesses, even the Queen.
:18:23. > :18:26.Tim Harford, who not, coincidently has an article in the Financial
:18:27. > :18:30.Times weekend magazine about how to best predict the future. Who would
:18:31. > :18:37.predict I got the score wrong, it was 7-1, Brazil versus Germany. We
:18:38. > :18:41.have Ben Lauderdale of the LSE who has developed a model to predict the
:18:42. > :18:45.next election, and Jackie Stevens from Northwestern University joins
:18:46. > :18:52.us too. Jackie Stevens your argument is that it is just a bad thing to
:18:53. > :18:57.try to predict the future at all? That's correct, I don't see a lot of
:18:58. > :19:01.value from the kind of short-term forecasting that social scientists
:19:02. > :19:06.have been relatively successful at, or the kind of selection modelling
:19:07. > :19:11.that doesn't seem to be especially useful, and the kinds of important
:19:12. > :19:14.events about which the public would have something at stake, political
:19:15. > :19:18.scientists and social scientists have not fared very well at
:19:19. > :19:23.predicts. For example election modelling, you would say withdraw
:19:24. > :19:27.funding for that kind of prediction that political scientists undertake?
:19:28. > :19:32.Well I wouldn't say withdraw all funding, my argument is that funding
:19:33. > :19:37.should be distributed on the basis of people having political science
:19:38. > :19:43.PhDs by the NSF in the United States, on a random basis and not
:19:44. > :19:52.based on particular social networks or past peer reviewed publications.
:19:53. > :19:55.Here in the studio we have Ben Lauderdale a daily bread forecaster.
:19:56. > :20:02.What is your general election forecast at the moment? Our best
:20:03. > :20:05.guess is Conservatives 301 Labour 295. However one of the things we
:20:06. > :20:09.try to emphasise in the forecast is uncertainty. The fact that we don't
:20:10. > :20:12.know that number. The margin of error is plus or minus 50 seats
:20:13. > :20:18.either side of that for both of the two parties. What that tells us is
:20:19. > :20:21.not this particular number will happen on election day, it would be
:20:22. > :20:28.foolhardy, but instead more likely than not there will be a hung
:20:29. > :20:32.parliament. But given what we know from history, geography and
:20:33. > :20:35.demography and polls available bringing that information together,
:20:36. > :20:40.there is fairly good evidence that a hung parliament is likely but either
:20:41. > :20:44.party could still manage a majority. Dr Stevens point is that is useless
:20:45. > :20:48.for the public, that information doesn't help the public, we should
:20:49. > :20:52.be concentrating on forecasting things that will actually make a
:20:53. > :20:56.difference? I won't claim that forecasting the next general
:20:57. > :20:58.election is the most important task for social scientists, I do think it
:20:59. > :21:01.is interesting and important. There are lots of stakes to the next
:21:02. > :21:05.general election in the UK, for a range of policy areas, there are
:21:06. > :21:09.stakeholders in those areas, people who care about immigration policy,
:21:10. > :21:13.who care about social welfare. So often you get it wrong? It is
:21:14. > :21:17.whether we get it wrong or right on any given case, it is a worthwhile
:21:18. > :21:22.exercise to try to get better at these forecasts. Is it a worthwhile
:21:23. > :21:26.exercise to get better at that, is it also a worthwhile exercise to get
:21:27. > :21:30.better at economic forecasting given what Tim Harford said, that it is so
:21:31. > :21:34.often wrong? Well, I think there is opportunity cost in the ways that we
:21:35. > :21:38.invest our resources in the social sciences. And so to the extent that
:21:39. > :21:41.we put our money into trying to guess the next general election we
:21:42. > :21:46.are not putting our money into developing let's say the kind of
:21:47. > :21:50.symbolic or cultural or other kinds of litties that might be important
:21:51. > :21:54.for helping the public orient themselves from Elementary School on
:21:55. > :21:58.ward to understand how events interact in a complex world. And
:21:59. > :22:03.instead by reducing our questions to those that can be answered by
:22:04. > :22:08.quantitative methods we foreclose real opportunities to try to enrich
:22:09. > :22:12.our understandings more generally. Would that not be more productive? I
:22:13. > :22:15.think having a range of topics under consideration is important. I don't
:22:16. > :22:18.think it is a very compelling argument to say we shouldn't do any
:22:19. > :22:23.of this. I certainly wouldn't recommend that everyone be engaged
:22:24. > :22:26.in these kinds of forecasting projects but they have an important
:22:27. > :22:31.role to play in checking that we know what we say we know. What about
:22:32. > :22:35.Tim Harford saying that super forecasters do different things.
:22:36. > :22:41.They review their work all the time. They work in teams and actually the
:22:42. > :22:44.predicting the, the wrong predictions are as valuable as the
:22:45. > :22:48.right predictions you are not drilling down? That is absolutely
:22:49. > :22:58.right. I work in a team with colleagues at the University of East
:22:59. > :23:02.Anglia, and Durham, we do bounce ideas off each other and we go back
:23:03. > :23:07.to 2010 to see how good the predictions are, we are not perfect,
:23:08. > :23:10.we miss lots of seats, we do as well as anyone at the time or maybe a
:23:11. > :23:14.little better. At the end of a week when opinion polls in the Scottish
:23:15. > :23:21.referendum have tightened from just a few points from a commanding lead
:23:22. > :23:24.for the Better Together campaign, Freeland emits a howl of pain at the
:23:25. > :23:28.possibility of Scotland leaving the union in less than two weeks time,
:23:29. > :23:33.he writes if Britain loses Scotland it will feel like an amputation. He
:23:34. > :23:39.worries that a poll might show a small lead for yes, and he says the
:23:40. > :23:41.British will become an extinct term. To get reflections on the last two
:23:42. > :23:47.weeks of campaigning Jonathan Freeland is here, and joining us
:23:48. > :23:54.from Scotland is Professor Philips O'Brien, part of the yes campaign.
:23:55. > :23:58.Jonathan Freeland, first of all, do you think the tone you are adapting
:23:59. > :24:03.is one that should have been adopted from the start? I'm not sure it
:24:04. > :24:06.would have been helpful for the campaign, the effect on people like
:24:07. > :24:09.me outside Scotland isn't the criteria by which the electorate in
:24:10. > :24:13.this contest are deciding. The choice they are making is what kind
:24:14. > :24:18.of Scotland is better for Scotland. One that is independent or one part
:24:19. > :24:26.of the union. So the effective break-up on England and Wales and
:24:27. > :24:30.Northern Ireland isn't th germaine. You seem to have not necessarily
:24:31. > :24:34.woken up but feeling it more viscerally now, do you think in the
:24:35. > :24:37.next two weeks that there will be a different atmosphere in England? I
:24:38. > :24:41.hope so. I have been writing on this for quite a long time. I haven't
:24:42. > :24:45.just woken up to it, but the prospect of a yes vote will
:24:46. > :24:48.concentrate the mind. So far it hasn't been concentrated, I think
:24:49. > :24:52.people have thought it is important but it will be a no vote. Now there
:24:53. > :24:55.is the prospect of a yes. I attached you to the yes campaign, which I
:24:56. > :24:59.shouldn't have said but I should have said you are a yes supporter?
:25:00. > :25:03.I'm an academic and tried to be evenhanded about the whole campaign.
:25:04. > :25:08.You are trying to be neutral in this, tell me what you think about
:25:09. > :25:12.the emphasis on the economy as the balancering ram of both sides --
:25:13. > :25:15.battering ram of both sides? It was always going to come down to that
:25:16. > :25:20.any way. Ultimately if people vote, one of the most interesting polls
:25:21. > :25:23.from years ago if you were going to be ?500 worse off you would vote
:25:24. > :25:26.against independence, if you felt you would be ?500 better off you
:25:27. > :25:31.would vote for it. The economy would be the defining issue of it. I think
:25:32. > :25:35.what has come down now is they are trying to sell two very different
:25:36. > :25:38.visions of what would happen after independence, the yes campaign's
:25:39. > :25:43.vision is things would get better. That Scotland could go off on its
:25:44. > :25:48.own and the unionists are saying it is simply too risky. Now we are in a
:25:49. > :25:54.situation where things are going to perhaps get you know pretty angry,
:25:55. > :25:57.in these last ten days a number of events are going to happen that
:25:58. > :26:00.perhaps will increase it. Where do you think that the key moments will
:26:01. > :26:04.come. What would be the key issues, what we are having now is we are
:26:05. > :26:08.having a ride north by everybody from John Prescott to David Cameron,
:26:09. > :26:12.probably together in the same bus? I would say angry would be really bad,
:26:13. > :26:16.if it gets angry then that would not be good for the no campaign. I think
:26:17. > :26:19.if you look at the Canadian experience what you want is a real
:26:20. > :26:24.love bomb, and not from politicians and celebrities. I think what's
:26:25. > :26:27.happened up in Scotland is there is letters from celebrities, there are
:26:28. > :26:30.politicians saying stay in the union. The interesting thing in the
:26:31. > :26:36.Canadian experience is average Canadians outside of question beck
:26:37. > :26:40.weretation -- Quebec, were saying please day, we want you to. That
:26:41. > :26:44.would be more effective than politicians and celebrities. In the
:26:45. > :26:48.Quebec case you had the emotional tightening of the vote in ten days
:26:49. > :26:52.and in the end it didn't deliver, there is a lot to play for? The last
:26:53. > :26:56.ten days are crucial, the fact that people are coming up, there may be a
:26:57. > :27:01.feeling in Scotland that will say what took you so long now you come
:27:02. > :27:04.up in the last two week, some of the messages could be
:27:05. > :27:11.counter-productive. In six days out from the referendum there is the
:27:12. > :27:17.prospect of a UKIP rally in Glasgow and in Edinburgh a very strong
:27:18. > :27:22.loyalist Orange Order march, both big events. I mean putting your own
:27:23. > :27:26.politics aside, looking at the impact of UKIP on a Scottish
:27:27. > :27:30.electorate what might that achieve? It is troubling for the no campaign,
:27:31. > :27:34.because that will tar them with the brush they don't want to be tarred
:27:35. > :27:38.with. UKIP did pretty well in the elections in Scotland, 10% of the
:27:39. > :27:41.vote, but that is a small constituency, what they need to know
:27:42. > :27:44.that may turn off, huge numbers of other Scottish voters who think it
:27:45. > :27:50.is little England nationalism they don't want any part of. If I was in
:27:51. > :27:54.the no campaign I would be telling Nigel Farage and the Orange Order to
:27:55. > :27:59.stay away. Absolutely, one of the things that showed that Scots could
:28:00. > :28:04.vote for independence if they believed the United Kingdom would
:28:05. > :28:08.leave the EU. If UKIP comes and brings a big thing about the union
:28:09. > :28:13.they are more likely to help break it up. Behind you you have the
:28:14. > :28:17.Clyde, in the hydro, one of the big new event places on the 11th
:28:18. > :28:22.September, there will be a BBC debate that has either 10,000 or
:28:23. > :28:27.12,000 new voters in it. That's going to be broadcast on BBC, the
:28:28. > :28:30.impact of first-time voters it was thought to be the great vote winner
:28:31. > :28:34.but that hasn't proved to be the case at the moment? I think it will
:28:35. > :28:38.be an extraordinary turnout. I think it is one of the things we can't
:28:39. > :28:41.really use previous models, I was interested in your earlier
:28:42. > :28:43.discussion. Because the turnout is so heavy, it is impossible to say
:28:44. > :28:48.what the key constituencies are going to be, will it be the young
:28:49. > :28:51.voters, older voters, people who haven't voted before. We are simply
:28:52. > :28:56.into a grey area because it is such an important vote and will have such
:28:57. > :29:00.a high turnout. Thank you very much indeed. That is just about all for
:29:01. > :29:05.this week, we leave you with another live preview of next week's prom,
:29:06. > :29:08.this time with a renowned clarinettist, Dimitri Ashkenazy,
:29:09. > :29:18.he's performing the final melody from the end of Sir Peter Maxwell
:29:19. > :29:48.Davies's Strathclyde Concerto No 4. Good night.