05/09/2014 Newsnight


05/09/2014

In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines, presented by Kirsty Wark.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

The rebels, the Russians and the Ukrainian leader agree a safe. I

:00:00.:00:12.

give an order to the chief of my military to declare a ceasefire. In

:00:13.:00:19.

half an hour's time. But will it last, we speak to one of the few

:00:20.:00:23.

women to heads a country within the alliance.

:00:24.:00:28.

And this: IMF research has recently found, this may not surprise you

:00:29.:00:32.

that the typical forecast missed every single recession, all around

:00:33.:00:38.

the world, every single time. An unblemished record of complete

:00:39.:00:42.

failure. Why are we so bad at seeing the future, these two might know.

:00:43.:00:51.

And a treat from our proms preview season, the celebrated clarinettist,

:00:52.:00:52.

Dimitri Ashkenazy. Good evening, it was an outcome of

:00:53.:01:11.

sorts, 1300 miles away from the NATO summit in Wales Vladimir Putin

:01:12.:01:16.

orchestrated a ceasefire between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian

:01:17.:01:20.

separatist. It endorsed an exchange of prisoners, the creation of a

:01:21.:01:23.

humanitarian corridor for refugees and aid, but offered no clarity at

:01:24.:01:27.

all in the future of the region. It is hard to imagine Putin's timing

:01:28.:01:31.

was anything other than a desire to draw the light and the impetuous

:01:32.:01:36.

from NATO, who announced a new rapid reaction spearhead force to boost

:01:37.:01:40.

eastern defences with a no so rapid timetable. It will become

:01:41.:01:45.

operational at the end of next year our diplomatic editor has been

:01:46.:01:52.

speaking to the NATO secretary-general.

:01:53.:01:57.

The summer ended as it began with the Ukrainian issue cast ago shadow.

:01:58.:02:01.

There was a new rapid Reaction Force implicitly to come to the aid of the

:02:02.:02:05.

Kremlin's next target, since Ukraine's President was here this

:02:06.:02:08.

afternoon, conceding he has had enough. Calling an immediate

:02:09.:02:17.

ceasefire. First of all I welcome any attempt to stop the bloodshed

:02:18.:02:27.

and the violence and if this ceasefire is implemented in good

:02:28.:02:34.

faith is could be the first step in a constructive political process.

:02:35.:02:39.

One of the headline outcomes I suppose from the summit is this new

:02:40.:02:43.

high-readiness tax force, you have called it a spearhead for FLAIT NATO

:02:44.:02:48.

reinforcement for members who feel they are coming under pressure from

:02:49.:02:51.

Russia. We have heard this afternoon it won't be ready for a year or me,

:02:52.:02:56.

will that impress the Kremlin? We have already taken steps and we will

:02:57.:03:05.

now enhance these measures to reinforce our collective defence.

:03:06.:03:15.

But we hear that the enforcement of the new high readiness force isn't

:03:16.:03:20.

started, is it one of those things that NATO like the principle but

:03:21.:03:24.

look at their shoes when it comes to contributing forces? At today's

:03:25.:03:29.

meetings I heard the first announcements of contributions to

:03:30.:03:32.

this spearhead force and that's much sooner than we had expected. So it

:03:33.:03:40.

demonstrates there is very clear determination to take the steps

:03:41.:03:46.

necessary to provide effective deterrents and defence. On the

:03:47.:03:54.

margins of this event, at the fancy dinners and in the hidden

:03:55.:03:58.

bilaterals, the crisis in Iraq and Syria absorbed the leaders too. But

:03:59.:04:03.

for all the Cummings and goings of John Kerry and Barack Obama, signs

:04:04.:04:07.

that forming a grand coalition against the Islamic state is not

:04:08.:04:11.

easy, despite the urgency of the cause. For Islamic extremism in

:04:12.:04:17.

Syria and Iraq, what has impressed me this week is just how the

:04:18.:04:20.

alliance has come together and realised we have all got to help

:04:21.:04:27.

tackle this. We hear people using phrases like "there won't be

:04:28.:04:31.

military action involving the UK for weeks at least", is that realistic

:04:32.:04:35.

or could it happen sooner than that? There is a huge amount done already.

:04:36.:04:44.

We have used the RAF to drop humanitarian supplies, both on mount

:04:45.:04:50.

Singa and relieving the siege at Ameli. We have been asked to do

:04:51.:04:54.

these things and we are willing to do that. We have a new Iraqi

:04:55.:05:00.

Government, we hope being formed next week and the alliance committed

:05:01.:05:03.

to making sure we do everything possible to help that new Government

:05:04.:05:06.

in the decisions it is going to take, to help halt the advance of IS

:05:07.:05:12.

and roll it back. If NATO sounds like an organisation launching its

:05:13.:05:19.

sell simultaneously towards -- itself simultaneously towards two

:05:20.:05:24.

and three different issues, the capability on display has to be paid

:05:25.:05:29.

for. That means reversing decades of defence cuts and signing up to a new

:05:30.:05:33.

ten-year target. This summit has been a clear demonstration of

:05:34.:05:42.

resolve, unity, cohesion and Governments from 28 allies have

:05:43.:05:50.

committed to reverse the trend of declining defence investment. And

:05:51.:05:54.

also to develop the necessary military capability to address these

:05:55.:05:58.

new security challenges. You know that some of these commitments, so

:05:59.:06:02.

called, are interpreted in a pretty elastic way politically by some of

:06:03.:06:07.

the members. When they talk about a 2% target for defence spending as a

:06:08.:06:12.

proportion of their economy, in ten years time, do you think

:06:13.:06:16.

realistically that NATO members will meet it? I think we will now turn a

:06:17.:06:24.

corner and you will see a gradual increase in defence investments and

:06:25.:06:29.

I would say the turning point is Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

:06:30.:06:33.

Because that has been a wake-up call, a reminder that we cannot take

:06:34.:06:38.

our security for granted. That has led to a reconsideration in many

:06:39.:06:43.

capitals, as regards defence spending. On his way home Barack

:06:44.:06:49.

Obama dropped in at Stonehenge. NATO's partisans like to portray it

:06:50.:06:53.

as monolithic in its resolve. But the impression of the past few days

:06:54.:06:57.

is of a group of leaders who have just about agreed on some new steps

:06:58.:07:02.

and now wonder how to sell those to their people.

:07:03.:07:09.

As well as becoming Denmark's first female Prime Minister, Helle

:07:10.:07:13.

Thorning-Schmidt shot to selfie infamy when she shot one with

:07:14.:07:17.

herself and Barack Obama controversially at Nelson Mandela's

:07:18.:07:21.

memorial. Now she's back with the subjects of a viral photograph as

:07:22.:07:24.

well as other leaders in the NATO summit in Wales. I went to meet her

:07:25.:07:30.

earlier. NATO has two big issues to grapple with, Ukraine and IS,

:07:31.:07:34.

addressing questions of what NATO is about, an existential question about

:07:35.:07:38.

what NATO is for. Can we deal first with Ukraine. A ceasefire set at

:07:39.:07:44.

5.00 tonight, will that then mean sanctions will start to be lifted?

:07:45.:07:47.

First of all to your question what is NATO all about, I think one word

:07:48.:07:52.

sums it up, it is about solidarity. And what we have discussed here for

:07:53.:07:58.

two days is basically how we show solidarity with the most vulnerable

:07:59.:08:01.

countries, that is closest to the Russian border, this is what we are

:08:02.:08:05.

going to do. We have shown resolve in order, in terms of doing that.

:08:06.:08:10.

And in the coming weeks and months we will see that we are showing that

:08:11.:08:14.

kind of resolve. Do you need to have sanctions imposed still? It is all

:08:15.:08:19.

to Russia, I mean there's, now we need to see action on the ground.

:08:20.:08:23.

There is a lot of words in this conflict, now we need to see action

:08:24.:08:27.

on the ground, that will determine whether we need to turn up the

:08:28.:08:33.

sanctions or not. It is interesting Putin signs the agreement and yet

:08:34.:08:38.

doesn't admit to troops in Ukraine, proof that you cannot trust him? I

:08:39.:08:41.

don't think it is so productive to go into that discussion, the most

:08:42.:08:45.

important now is to underline that if there is a negotiated agreement

:08:46.:08:51.

to stop using weapons then that is what we are hoping for. We will of

:08:52.:08:56.

course still prepare the sanctions and what we need basically is not to

:08:57.:08:59.

have more words but see action on the ground. Yesterday the Lithuanian

:09:00.:09:06.

President told Newsnight if you don't deal sufficiently with

:09:07.:09:09.

President Putin over Ukraine, next time it will be a NATO country on

:09:10.:09:14.

President Putin over Ukraine, next Russia's border? There is a big

:09:15.:09:16.

difference between being a NATO country and not being a NATO

:09:17.:09:20.

country, and I'm sure that the Russians can see that difference as

:09:21.:09:26.

well. What we have done at this meeting is really confirm our

:09:27.:09:29.

solidarity, not just in words, but also in action, and that means, for

:09:30.:09:35.

example, that we will have strengthening our NATO headquarters

:09:36.:09:40.

in Poland. We are doing air policing already, Denmark is contributing to

:09:41.:09:45.

that. And other ways of showing that we have that solidarity and that we

:09:46.:09:50.

are prepared to show that to our most vulnerable member states in

:09:51.:09:55.

NATO. Let's turn to IS, David Cameron was very firm last night

:09:56.:09:59.

when he talked about the fact that countries that paid ransom allowed

:10:00.:10:07.

IS to wreak havoc, is he right? He is right, ransom is partly what is

:10:08.:10:12.

funding the IS, and we have to be very serious about the question. I

:10:13.:10:15.

think he's right to raise that question. But we had a Danish

:10:16.:10:22.

hostage who was a photo journalist, Daniel Rayortison with James Foley

:10:23.:10:27.

in Syria, he came home alive. Did the Danish Government pay a ransom?

:10:28.:10:30.

We did not, we never deal with terrorists and never pay ransoms to

:10:31.:10:34.

terrorists. We will never do that. But we know the French do, how can

:10:35.:10:40.

NATO act in concert when a key member does that? This is a relevant

:10:41.:10:45.

discussion. I appreciate the British Prime Minister bringing it up. I

:10:46.:10:48.

just want to say clearly from the Danish side we never deal with

:10:49.:10:51.

terrorists, we never pay ransom to terrorists. And finally, as a Prime

:10:52.:10:55.

Minister and particularly as a female Prime Minister you are always

:10:56.:11:00.

under scrutiny, so have you taken another selfie with Barack Obama and

:11:01.:11:03.

David Cameron here at the NATO summit? I haven't, I didn't feel the

:11:04.:11:07.

need to because I have one already! Prime Minister, thank you very much!

:11:08.:11:15.

Very good, I like that! Just to mention the fans of Borg can find

:11:16.:11:19.

out what the Danish Prime Minister thinks of that show on our YouTube

:11:20.:11:23.

channel. Ahead of the NATO summit President Obama announced that the

:11:24.:11:29.

US had no strategy for dealing with Islam Islamic State, today he said

:11:30.:11:35.

they posed a real and long-term threat to the alliance and he and

:11:36.:11:39.

John Kerry would be working to build a broader alliance to deal with the

:11:40.:11:43.

terror group in the region. Laura joins me now. First of all it

:11:44.:11:47.

was very much IS on the margin because the focus was on Ukraine?

:11:48.:11:51.

Thats That is absolutely right. There is clearly an ambition for

:11:52.:11:54.

action there. There were plenty of conversations taking place. The

:11:55.:11:57.

question of practicalities and the optics here. We understand that

:11:58.:12:02.

there is now a coalition of ten countries, countries like France and

:12:03.:12:05.

Australia who have indicated that they are willing to participate in

:12:06.:12:09.

some form of action. But crucially, for example, France expressed today

:12:10.:12:13.

going public that they would be willing to take action against IS in

:12:14.:12:18.

Iraq, but not in Syria. Also crucially important to America is

:12:19.:12:21.

that what someone in Government described to me as respectable

:12:22.:12:26.

regional partners are also involved. But significant today that the U

:12:27.:12:31.

Knighted Arab Emirates was at the NATO meeting. They are not a member

:12:32.:12:38.

but they were there, and they made a public statement saying unified

:12:39.:12:42.

action was very important. On the home front are MPs being canvassed

:12:43.:12:48.

very quietly about air strikes? There are conversations about

:12:49.:12:50.

willingness to take some kind of action. This is rolling the pitch

:12:51.:12:54.

rather than putting specific proposals or trying to tally the

:12:55.:12:59.

numbers for any kind of vote. There are two very important conditions

:13:00.:13:03.

for the UK Government. Like the Americans the UK is determined that

:13:04.:13:07.

you have to have respectable regional partners involved and also

:13:08.:13:11.

that a stable, or what looks like it might be a stable new Iraqi

:13:12.:13:19.

Government will be in place, there would not be sectarian leadership.

:13:20.:13:23.

In the diary, we have a significant British event the Scottish

:13:24.:13:26.

referendum on the 18th, it is unlikely the Government will push

:13:27.:13:28.

anything controversial before that. But that is a second order issue, if

:13:29.:13:32.

you like. The two other big conditions are ones that would have

:13:33.:13:35.

to be met and this is all before President Obama sets out his vision

:13:36.:13:38.

at the UN and that's not for another couple of weeks. Thank you very much

:13:39.:13:47.

indeed. If you had said at the beginning of the year that Brazil

:13:48.:13:51.

would hose 7-0 in the World Cup or the British economy would be the

:13:52.:13:56.

fastest growing in the G 7 you would have been laughed out of the room.

:13:57.:14:02.

These are interesting times, why do the forecasters not forecast the big

:14:03.:14:04.

stuff and get the little stuff wrong. We peer into the world of

:14:05.:14:13.

political and economic forecasting. Consider the vital human subject of

:14:14.:14:19.

economics and politics that so engage Newsnight's discerning

:14:20.:14:23.

audience. When it comes to such matters we're terrible at making

:14:24.:14:27.

forecasts. Why? Why is it that the fancy

:14:28.:14:33.

forecasts we keep hearing from the Government, City economists and the

:14:34.:14:38.

International Monetary Fund simply aren't very good. IMF research has

:14:39.:14:43.

recently found, and this may not surprise you, that the typical

:14:44.:14:46.

forecast missed every single recession, all around the world,

:14:47.:14:52.

every single time. An unblemished record of complete failure.

:14:53.:14:58.

Sometimes you just need a friend, someone close to you, someone plain

:14:59.:15:01.

speaking to tell you what everyone else is thinking. In this case it

:15:02.:15:13.

was the Queen, after the banking crisis she visited the London School

:15:14.:15:17.

of Economics and asked its great academics why did no-one see it

:15:18.:15:22.

coming? It is fair question, and not only for the economists, who

:15:23.:15:29.

predicted the Arab Spring, the drop in crime in Britain, the impact of

:15:30.:15:34.

the internet and the smartphone, the fall of the Berlin wall. Bad

:15:35.:15:38.

forecasts matter. Governments and businesses are always trying to peer

:15:39.:15:43.

into future. Forecast influences our foreign policy, the size of the army

:15:44.:15:47.

or police force, resources for school systems, border controls and

:15:48.:15:50.

billions flowing around the stock market. Why are forecasters so bad

:15:51.:15:59.

at their jobs. One reason is that the world is a complicated place,

:16:00.:16:03.

you can't see the future of Ukraine any more than you can see how many

:16:04.:16:07.

Conservative MPs will defect to UKIP. It is foolish to ask for

:16:08.:16:11.

predictions about the fundamentally unpredictable. A second reason is

:16:12.:16:17.

that when forecasters make predictions, they are not trying to

:16:18.:16:22.

see into the future. They are prone to bias. They are trying to say

:16:23.:16:26.

something original, or they are cheering for their side in an

:16:27.:16:28.

argument, or they are selling a product. Economic and political

:16:29.:16:37.

forecasts are like horoscopes, horoscopes aren't accurate because

:16:38.:16:40.

they are -- popular because they are accurate but they are engaging and

:16:41.:16:45.

seeming plausible at the time. We don't have to give up on the whole

:16:46.:16:52.

forecasting issue, a group of psychologists in America have been

:16:53.:16:55.

running a vast geological competition with thousands of

:16:56.:17:00.

participants. They have discovered a select group they call the "super

:17:01.:17:05.

forecasters", they are uncannily good at making predictions. They

:17:06.:17:09.

also know what can and can't be predicted. They know when they are

:17:10.:17:13.

speaking with insight and when they are just randomly throwing darts. So

:17:14.:17:20.

how do they do it? Here are three secrets to super forecasting. One,

:17:21.:17:30.

feedback. Forecasters make predictions about casualties in Gaza

:17:31.:17:33.

or the next move in Ukraine and they quickly see if the predictions are

:17:34.:17:37.

right. The feedback comes again and again, so the best forecasters soon

:17:38.:17:41.

learn what they can and can't predict. Two, work in teams. Super

:17:42.:17:47.

forecasters are even better when they are working in teams, they

:17:48.:17:52.

challenge each other. Three, prove yourself wrong. Super forecasters

:17:53.:17:56.

actively try to prove themselves wrong. They try to see the opposite

:17:57.:18:01.

side of any argument, probing their own thinking for weaknesses. To be

:18:02.:18:07.

honest, that sounds like exhausting, thanksless, anxious work, but at

:18:08.:18:11.

least now we might be able to see some things coming and that might

:18:12.:18:15.

please everyone. Governments, businesses, even the Queen.

:18:16.:18:22.

Tim Harford, who not, coincidently has an article in the Financial

:18:23.:18:26.

Times weekend magazine about how to best predict the future. Who would

:18:27.:18:30.

predict I got the score wrong, it was 7-1, Brazil versus Germany. We

:18:31.:18:37.

have Ben Lauderdale of the LSE who has developed a model to predict the

:18:38.:18:41.

next election, and Jackie Stevens from Northwestern University joins

:18:42.:18:45.

us too. Jackie Stevens your argument is that it is just a bad thing to

:18:46.:18:52.

try to predict the future at all? That's correct, I don't see a lot of

:18:53.:18:57.

value from the kind of short-term forecasting that social scientists

:18:58.:19:01.

have been relatively successful at, or the kind of selection modelling

:19:02.:19:06.

that doesn't seem to be especially useful, and the kinds of important

:19:07.:19:11.

events about which the public would have something at stake, political

:19:12.:19:14.

scientists and social scientists have not fared very well at

:19:15.:19:18.

predicts. For example election modelling, you would say withdraw

:19:19.:19:23.

funding for that kind of prediction that political scientists undertake?

:19:24.:19:27.

Well I wouldn't say withdraw all funding, my argument is that funding

:19:28.:19:32.

should be distributed on the basis of people having political science

:19:33.:19:37.

PhDs by the NSF in the United States, on a random basis and not

:19:38.:19:43.

based on particular social networks or past peer reviewed publications.

:19:44.:19:52.

Here in the studio we have Ben Lauderdale a daily bread forecaster.

:19:53.:19:55.

What is your general election forecast at the moment? Our best

:19:56.:20:02.

guess is Conservatives 301 Labour 295. However one of the things we

:20:03.:20:05.

try to emphasise in the forecast is uncertainty. The fact that we don't

:20:06.:20:09.

know that number. The margin of error is plus or minus 50 seats

:20:10.:20:12.

either side of that for both of the two parties. What that tells us is

:20:13.:20:18.

not this particular number will happen on election day, it would be

:20:19.:20:21.

foolhardy, but instead more likely than not there will be a hung

:20:22.:20:28.

parliament. But given what we know from history, geography and

:20:29.:20:32.

demography and polls available bringing that information together,

:20:33.:20:35.

there is fairly good evidence that a hung parliament is likely but either

:20:36.:20:40.

party could still manage a majority. Dr Stevens point is that is useless

:20:41.:20:44.

for the public, that information doesn't help the public, we should

:20:45.:20:48.

be concentrating on forecasting things that will actually make a

:20:49.:20:52.

difference? I won't claim that forecasting the next general

:20:53.:20:56.

election is the most important task for social scientists, I do think it

:20:57.:20:58.

is interesting and important. There are lots of stakes to the next

:20:59.:21:01.

general election in the UK, for a range of policy areas, there are

:21:02.:21:05.

stakeholders in those areas, people who care about immigration policy,

:21:06.:21:09.

who care about social welfare. So often you get it wrong? It is

:21:10.:21:13.

whether we get it wrong or right on any given case, it is a worthwhile

:21:14.:21:17.

exercise to try to get better at these forecasts. Is it a worthwhile

:21:18.:21:22.

exercise to get better at that, is it also a worthwhile exercise to get

:21:23.:21:26.

better at economic forecasting given what Tim Harford said, that it is so

:21:27.:21:30.

often wrong? Well, I think there is opportunity cost in the ways that we

:21:31.:21:34.

invest our resources in the social sciences. And so to the extent that

:21:35.:21:38.

we put our money into trying to guess the next general election we

:21:39.:21:41.

are not putting our money into developing let's say the kind of

:21:42.:21:46.

symbolic or cultural or other kinds of litties that might be important

:21:47.:21:50.

for helping the public orient themselves from Elementary School on

:21:51.:21:54.

ward to understand how events interact in a complex world. And

:21:55.:21:58.

instead by reducing our questions to those that can be answered by

:21:59.:22:03.

quantitative methods we foreclose real opportunities to try to enrich

:22:04.:22:08.

our understandings more generally. Would that not be more productive? I

:22:09.:22:12.

think having a range of topics under consideration is important. I don't

:22:13.:22:15.

think it is a very compelling argument to say we shouldn't do any

:22:16.:22:18.

of this. I certainly wouldn't recommend that everyone be engaged

:22:19.:22:23.

in these kinds of forecasting projects but they have an important

:22:24.:22:26.

role to play in checking that we know what we say we know. What about

:22:27.:22:31.

Tim Harford saying that super forecasters do different things.

:22:32.:22:35.

They review their work all the time. They work in teams and actually the

:22:36.:22:41.

predicting the, the wrong predictions are as valuable as the

:22:42.:22:44.

right predictions you are not drilling down? That is absolutely

:22:45.:22:48.

right. I work in a team with colleagues at the University of East

:22:49.:22:58.

Anglia, and Durham, we do bounce ideas off each other and we go back

:22:59.:23:02.

to 2010 to see how good the predictions are, we are not perfect,

:23:03.:23:07.

we miss lots of seats, we do as well as anyone at the time or maybe a

:23:08.:23:10.

little better. At the end of a week when opinion polls in the Scottish

:23:11.:23:14.

referendum have tightened from just a few points from a commanding lead

:23:15.:23:21.

for the Better Together campaign, Freeland emits a howl of pain at the

:23:22.:23:24.

possibility of Scotland leaving the union in less than two weeks time,

:23:25.:23:28.

he writes if Britain loses Scotland it will feel like an amputation. He

:23:29.:23:33.

worries that a poll might show a small lead for yes, and he says the

:23:34.:23:39.

British will become an extinct term. To get reflections on the last two

:23:40.:23:41.

weeks of campaigning Jonathan Freeland is here, and joining us

:23:42.:23:47.

from Scotland is Professor Philips O'Brien, part of the yes campaign.

:23:48.:23:54.

Jonathan Freeland, first of all, do you think the tone you are adapting

:23:55.:23:58.

is one that should have been adopted from the start? I'm not sure it

:23:59.:24:03.

would have been helpful for the campaign, the effect on people like

:24:04.:24:06.

me outside Scotland isn't the criteria by which the electorate in

:24:07.:24:09.

this contest are deciding. The choice they are making is what kind

:24:10.:24:13.

of Scotland is better for Scotland. One that is independent or one part

:24:14.:24:18.

of the union. So the effective break-up on England and Wales and

:24:19.:24:26.

Northern Ireland isn't th germaine. You seem to have not necessarily

:24:27.:24:30.

woken up but feeling it more viscerally now, do you think in the

:24:31.:24:34.

next two weeks that there will be a different atmosphere in England? I

:24:35.:24:37.

hope so. I have been writing on this for quite a long time. I haven't

:24:38.:24:41.

just woken up to it, but the prospect of a yes vote will

:24:42.:24:45.

concentrate the mind. So far it hasn't been concentrated, I think

:24:46.:24:48.

people have thought it is important but it will be a no vote. Now there

:24:49.:24:52.

is the prospect of a yes. I attached you to the yes campaign, which I

:24:53.:24:55.

shouldn't have said but I should have said you are a yes supporter?

:24:56.:24:59.

I'm an academic and tried to be evenhanded about the whole campaign.

:25:00.:25:03.

You are trying to be neutral in this, tell me what you think about

:25:04.:25:08.

the emphasis on the economy as the balancering ram of both sides --

:25:09.:25:12.

battering ram of both sides? It was always going to come down to that

:25:13.:25:15.

any way. Ultimately if people vote, one of the most interesting polls

:25:16.:25:20.

from years ago if you were going to be ?500 worse off you would vote

:25:21.:25:23.

against independence, if you felt you would be ?500 better off you

:25:24.:25:26.

would vote for it. The economy would be the defining issue of it. I think

:25:27.:25:31.

what has come down now is they are trying to sell two very different

:25:32.:25:35.

visions of what would happen after independence, the yes campaign's

:25:36.:25:38.

vision is things would get better. That Scotland could go off on its

:25:39.:25:43.

own and the unionists are saying it is simply too risky. Now we are in a

:25:44.:25:48.

situation where things are going to perhaps get you know pretty angry,

:25:49.:25:54.

in these last ten days a number of events are going to happen that

:25:55.:25:57.

perhaps will increase it. Where do you think that the key moments will

:25:58.:26:00.

come. What would be the key issues, what we are having now is we are

:26:01.:26:04.

having a ride north by everybody from John Prescott to David Cameron,

:26:05.:26:08.

probably together in the same bus? I would say angry would be really bad,

:26:09.:26:12.

if it gets angry then that would not be good for the no campaign. I think

:26:13.:26:16.

if you look at the Canadian experience what you want is a real

:26:17.:26:19.

love bomb, and not from politicians and celebrities. I think what's

:26:20.:26:24.

happened up in Scotland is there is letters from celebrities, there are

:26:25.:26:27.

politicians saying stay in the union. The interesting thing in the

:26:28.:26:30.

Canadian experience is average Canadians outside of question beck

:26:31.:26:36.

weretation -- Quebec, were saying please day, we want you to. That

:26:37.:26:40.

would be more effective than politicians and celebrities. In the

:26:41.:26:44.

Quebec case you had the emotional tightening of the vote in ten days

:26:45.:26:48.

and in the end it didn't deliver, there is a lot to play for? The last

:26:49.:26:52.

ten days are crucial, the fact that people are coming up, there may be a

:26:53.:26:56.

feeling in Scotland that will say what took you so long now you come

:26:57.:27:01.

up in the last two week, some of the messages could be

:27:02.:27:04.

counter-productive. In six days out from the referendum there is the

:27:05.:27:11.

prospect of a UKIP rally in Glasgow and in Edinburgh a very strong

:27:12.:27:17.

loyalist Orange Order march, both big events. I mean putting your own

:27:18.:27:22.

politics aside, looking at the impact of UKIP on a Scottish

:27:23.:27:26.

electorate what might that achieve? It is troubling for the no campaign,

:27:27.:27:30.

because that will tar them with the brush they don't want to be tarred

:27:31.:27:34.

with. UKIP did pretty well in the elections in Scotland, 10% of the

:27:35.:27:38.

vote, but that is a small constituency, what they need to know

:27:39.:27:41.

that may turn off, huge numbers of other Scottish voters who think it

:27:42.:27:44.

is little England nationalism they don't want any part of. If I was in

:27:45.:27:50.

the no campaign I would be telling Nigel Farage and the Orange Order to

:27:51.:27:54.

stay away. Absolutely, one of the things that showed that Scots could

:27:55.:27:59.

vote for independence if they believed the United Kingdom would

:28:00.:28:04.

leave the EU. If UKIP comes and brings a big thing about the union

:28:05.:28:08.

they are more likely to help break it up. Behind you you have the

:28:09.:28:13.

Clyde, in the hydro, one of the big new event places on the 11th

:28:14.:28:17.

September, there will be a BBC debate that has either 10,000 or

:28:18.:28:22.

12,000 new voters in it. That's going to be broadcast on BBC, the

:28:23.:28:27.

impact of first-time voters it was thought to be the great vote winner

:28:28.:28:30.

but that hasn't proved to be the case at the moment? I think it will

:28:31.:28:34.

be an extraordinary turnout. I think it is one of the things we can't

:28:35.:28:38.

really use previous models, I was interested in your earlier

:28:39.:28:41.

discussion. Because the turnout is so heavy, it is impossible to say

:28:42.:28:43.

what the key constituencies are going to be, will it be the young

:28:44.:28:48.

voters, older voters, people who haven't voted before. We are simply

:28:49.:28:51.

into a grey area because it is such an important vote and will have such

:28:52.:28:56.

a high turnout. Thank you very much indeed. That is just about all for

:28:57.:29:00.

this week, we leave you with another live preview of next week's prom,

:29:01.:29:05.

this time with a renowned clarinettist, Dimitri Ashkenazy,

:29:06.:29:08.

he's performing the final melody from the end of Sir Peter Maxwell

:29:09.:29:18.

Davies's Strathclyde Concerto No 4. Good night.

:29:19.:29:48.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS