10/09/2014 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Laura Kuenssberg.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, how did this become Team Westminster, versus Team Scotland.


The PM was virtually on his knees today begging the people of Scotland


to vote no. I would be heartbroken if this family of nations that we


have put together and that we have done such amazing things together,


if this family of nations was torn apart. We will ask the Chief


Secretary to the Treasury and Scottish MP which team he feels more


part of. What would happen to the UK's place on the world stage if


Scotland goes it alone? We talk to the former NATO secretary-general


George Robertson and the SNP's Keith Brown.


President Obama's about to tell America that its campaign against


ISIS will intensify. We will ask the former head of US counter terrorism


how that should be done? Good evening, if you are fed up with


the effing Tories, David Cameron pleaded today, you can think again.


This is totally different, with the tone of a desperate boyfriend the


Prime Minister ditched his pride and party to beg a country of people who


don't much like him not to leave. There are few things in his


professional life he could ever have wanted more. The reason is simple,


if the UK breaks up under his watch it is the only thing he will be ever


remembered for. He was in Edinburgh today and back next Monday. The one


person genuinely pleased to see him is one Alex Salmond who believes the


presence of all Westminster party leaders there is helping him.


News tonight about Lloyd's? That's right, after a few days where


Alex Salmond had reasons to have a bigger and bigger grin on the


campaign trail, a couple of reasons for the no side to feel a bit more


cheerful tonight. In the last few minutes RBS and Lloyd's who employ


thousands of people, just in this city, and right across Scotland have


confirmed that if there is a yes vote they will move their


headquarters down to England. If you live in this city and you have been


hearing economic warning aplenty from Westminster, and not convinced


about whether or not they are real, that news tonight may cause some


people to think again, or certainly those undecided to understand that


according to the no side there is a very real threat to them and their


incomes too. What is the mood tonight with the Westminster


contingent in full swing during the day? After Westminster I suppose


woke up in a nightmare having dosed their way through two long years of


this campaign, it did feel, here in this city, a bit panics in the way


the trio arrived today. By the same token for some on the other side in


a sense it provided some of that emotion, that feeling from the gut


that campaign has been yearning for. In terms of whether or not it will


change any minds, in a funny way, having been out and about today, it


felt like a bit of a side sideshow from the real campaign. You would


never have known something was brewing in Edinburgh's polite city


centre. But what was about to happen? We are not sure we have been


told David Cameron is here today. We know he's meant to be out on the


streets but obviously he has come straight to the financial district.


I don't understand why he's in Scotland, not actually talking to


the public, like he's supposed to be doing. When David Cameron arrived,


through the back, he knew the union is now on the line. Instinct, not


economics wrote the script. I think people can feel it is a bit like a


general election, that you make a decision and five years later you


can make another decision if you are fed up with the effing Tories, give


them a kick and maybe we will think again, this is totally different to


a general election. This is a decision about not the next five


years, it is a decision about the next century. Not so polite now.


There are just eight days until he could become the last-ever Prime


Minister of Great Britain as we know it. He has come to talk to voters to


listen to them, he has certainly spoken plainly and from the heart.


But controlled visits like this, despite the chaos outside aren't


exactly diving into the fray of the campaign.


Ed Miliband tried to show he cared, in front of a "friendly" audience. I


say don't choose an irreversible separation, choose to stay together.


Not least because it is Labour votes that have shift today yes. Nick


Clegg did at least brave the street. Whether a mercy mission or madness,


the trio were trying to counter the independence campaign's energy. Yes


shops on high streets. What has the last week been like?


This week has been busy, I thought it would ease off today as time went


on. But it is getting busier. The shop was really busy today. You


could hardly move in here at some stages. And visitors from the UK


parties gave Scotland's master of soundbites a key line. We have jobs


in Scotland protecting the National Health Service, they are concerned


this last gasp effort seems to be with their own jobs, that is the


contrast between the breadth and reach of Team Scotland and the


narrow focus of Team Westminster, that is why I think we are


decisively winning the campaign on the ground. It is not decisive yet,


but it has taken Westminster too long to hear this. This is the


vision we have for your country. This fight and it is a fight has


been happening for more than two long years. This high street was


covered in posters until they were torn down in the middle of the


night. It has been a lengthy and fierce campaign. I feel like I have


run an American presidential campaign. It feels like that. It has


been difficult at times, but at the same time we're knocking doors and


people are telling us every day I'm voting no. The real campaign doesn't


feel like it belongs to any politician. It belongs to the


street. And there is a sense something has started that just


can't be stopped. And that has implications for the whole of the


UK. Perhaps it started long before all this. Are you voting for


origins? Keep your voice down. Creating the Scottish Parliament


when he was in the cabinet was meant to kill the argument for


independence, instead are we witnessing the inevitable erosion of


the status quo. You have to remember this, when I was first examining for


this the Labour executive in Scotland, the Labour in Wales, led


by Neil Kinnock, all refused devolution, why, because they were


running before the nationalists. Where you are right nationalists


have got stronger and stronger. Wasn't it Labour's decision to


create the Scottish Parliament that inevitably might mean the union


breaks up? Well, it was the Labour Party recognition that the Scottish


Parliament eventually went on to say that there should be a Scottish


Parliament. We agreed with that. I then said it should be everywhere


else. All politicians have had a sharp reminder straight from the


streets of Scotland, voters wants and needs don't always stay the


same. With over a week before the vote, neither might the shape of the


country. That was Laura Kuensberg reporting


there. In a moment we will be talking to Lord Robertson, the


former secretary-general of NATO about the implications for a new UK


or for a new Scotland on the world stage if the vote goes to a yes next


week. But in the meantime I think we can speak to Danny Alexander, the


chief secretary to the Treasury in Inverness. Thank you for your time


tonight, we have seen an awful lot of emotion in the last 48 hours. I'm


wondering how you, a Scot, are feeling tonight, whether you share


that emotion? I'm a proud Scot and Highlander, I'm a brought Briton and


European too. Of course this is something which is about who we are


as a country, about our history, about the shared endeavours we have


engaged in over very many years. Of course there is emotion there too. I


think the principal thing today is there are some hard-headed economic


fact, which has raised its head in the debate today, which is showing


to people again just how serious this is, and just how damaging


independence would be for jobs, for prosperity, for the funds that we


have for our public services. Of course those things are facts but


they are also emotional too. But people don't want to live in a


country if we make the wrong decision and vote yes next week we


will cause all those problems for people. It was interesting hearing


David Cameron today recognise the "effing Tories", we don't know if


that was a slip of the tongue or very conscious, but he knows they


are hated there. The Lib Dems have 11 seats, you have not, could you


have taken a firmer role in the campaign from the start? I have been


taking a full role from the start, and making my views known from the


start. What went wrong, presumably it is not in the place you would


like it to be now? Right? We always expected that the referendum would


get tighter as you got closer to the day, but I think that what we have


seen over the last few days is a real crystallisation of the choice


for people, where you have on the one hand an economic risky,


dangerous idea of independence, which of course represents change,


but I think change for the worse. And the change that you get by


voting no, a stronger parliament within the UK, a stronger economy


within the UK, a safer, faster form of change for Scotland. That is the


choice people are facing and my sense is people are coming my way.


You say risky and talked about fears, I wonder would you admit if


the campaign was rather heavy-handed, there was too much


fear and loathing and not enough love and passion? You are asking me


questions as if some how the referendum is over. The referendum


is not over. There are seven, eight days of campaigning left. Those are


important days because there are a lot of people who are still


undecided. There are votes to win. And what I'm saying is the choice


crystallises into a very positive argument for the change we get if we


stay as part of the United Kingdom. The extra political strength that


Scotland gets with the more powers, and the economic strength we get


from being part of the strongest economic recovery in the G 7. You


wouldn't be here if the devo max question was on the ballot paper at


the beginning, everyone could have saved a huge headache with that? The


choice on the ballot paper is the best choice, it was a democratic


mandate. You don't think it was a mistake not to have three questions?


It was the only choice after the democratic mandate after the 2011


election. The SNP won an election on the basis of the the results. We


worked to make sure it was legal and fair. What people are seeing today,


on day when major businesses are speaking up, that independence is


such a risky choice for prosperity. Fair enough, let's look ahead,


Alastair Carmichael has said he will resign and help Team Scotland


negotiate if it is a yes vote, will you? No, I'm on Team Scotland right


now. I'm on Team Scotland and arguing for Scotland, to stay within


the United Kingdom. I'm as passionate and committed to Scotland


as any nationalist politician. Look the issue here is how do we make


sure that over these final days of the campaign, we focus on the


massive economic risks of independence, we spell that out.


Today has been a Black Wednesday for Alex Salmond, we have seen Lloyd's


this evening, we have seen Standard Life, BP and Shell, big companies,


big employers in Scotland who are saying this really matters for jobs


and prosperity. Alex Salmond says they are not going to leave and


wouldn't be building new buildings if they were? Do you really believe


that? I don't, I think we should listen to those companies who are,


and those employers in Scotland who are making the point powerfully


today that jobs and prosperity, as well as mortgages and growth in


Scotland all depend on making sure we keep the UK together. And they


may not leave if it does break up. If it is a yes, your job would be to


negotiate the rest of the union's deal against the interests of your


own constituents. That is pretty untenable isn't it? My job over the


next eight days is to make sure we present as awful and passionate a


positive case for keeping the UK together and make sure no-one in


Scotland votes... You are refusing to say you will stay in the job if


it is a yes vote? Continue to serve Ly my constituent, that is my


primary duty and one I take incredibly seriously come what may.


I will be on Team Scotland, today, tomorrow for as long as it takes. At


some stage you will have to choose between a job working in a


Westminster Government, if it is a yes vote, and an allegance to a new


country that needs you -- allegiance to a new country that needs you? I'm


not speculating about a result I'm confident will be a no vote. Because


the case for voting no is so strong. It is a case about delivering change


of the right sort for Scotland and case of avoiding something that


would be incredibly difficult for this country. Help me work through a


no vote. There will still be, we understand, more economic powers


granted to Scotland, income tax and so on we have been hearing about. So


would that make you then an MP in a Scottish seat deciding England and


Wales' spending when the rest of the UK couldn't hold you accountable,


because Scotland would be doing its own economics for the most part? I'm


already an MP for a Scottish constituency deciding spending for


the whole of the United Kingdom. If income tax is devolved to Scotland?


You are referring to spending and spending matters are already


determined in the Scottish Parliament. How much money is spent


on health, how much money is spent on education. Unnen those will be


included in new powers to Scotland, is that right? You are not going to


change any of the spending in terms of the new powers to Scotland? The


point I'm making is the spending hours are already with the Scottish


Parliament. So we decide budget all locations for departments at --


allocations for departments at a UK level and the Scottish Parliament


gets it via the formula. We have heard income tax is one of the major


issues for change, if Scotland is deciding its own income tax, and you


are working as chief secretary to the Treasury, presumably with George


Osborne on a budget, deciding the income tax rates for the people in


the rest of the UK, we can't hold you accountable at all? Let's not


speculate on the result of the next general election just yet. You have


been speck late on banks and big business, I'm asking you how your


position would work in either way? That is completely wrong. I haven't


been speculating on what banks and big business will be doing, I have


been commenting on the profoundly important statements those companies


have been making today. When a company like Standard Life says it


would, unfortunately, sadly, have to relocate its business to London,


that is not some sort of decision that they make lightly. They make it


on the basis that they regard that as the best way to protect their


customers under the new circumstances. When we hear Lloyd's


and other banks making clear they would have to do the same, again


that is not something they say lightly. They say it having thought


about it and talked to the board and the senior people in those


companies. When the people of Scotland respond to. That When you


dismiss it as speculation, it is a fact. When the people of Scotland


respond to that, as many I have spoken to over the past couple of


days saying all they are trying to do is scare monger and drive us


towards them instead of any kind of approach that sounds attractive to


Scotland, you are doing it again aren't you? I think the approach


most attractive for most Scots is the approach that says we want a


more powerful, more responsible parliament, but whilst remaining the


financial, economic, wider security we get from being part of the UK.


That is what I, as a Liberal Democrat, have believed in for all


of my time in politics. A federal solution for Scotland within the


United Kingdom. That is what is so excite beg the step that we can take


after a no vote in the referendum but I don't consider it could be


scaremongering for companies and people like Sir Ian Woods to set out


the facts. People need to know the facts and not just the nonsense from


the SNP Thank you for your time. Over the next week we will speak to


senior figures from the yes campaign in getting their thoughts on. That


what of the UK standing alone on the international stage. No better man


to answer the question is the man who ran NATO, Lord Robertson rob,


and Keith Brown the SNP's veterans' minister joins us.


What do you think will happen? The first thing that will happen is the


break-up of Britain will mean the break-up basically of the second


military and diplomatic power in the west. And destablise the west, just


at a moment when ISIS is rampaging in the Middle East and when


President Putin is waving his nuclear weapons in the air. That


would be a serious destablisation, which I think would have


reprecussions way beyond Scotland and the United Kingdom. It would


also lead to the dismemberment of the British Armed Forces. That is


strong, dismemberment of the British Armed Forces? It would be, the SNP


plan to take two frigets out of the Navy, and patrol boats out of the


Navy, and Eurofighters. It is 12% isn't it? The amount of critical


mass, the amount of training, pit lots, the background, the logistic


tales, all of that, yes you start to dismember the Armed Forces of this


country, you reduce the budget by ?2. 5 billion, that is what the SNP


say they want out of the UK defence budget. That is serious


reprecussions for England. You are talking about England, not Scotland,


they are not as badly affected? They will have a Dad's Army rather than


being part of the British Armed Forces. They will have 3,500 troops,


that is maybe 800 active combat troops. So Scotland will build up,


they claim in a plan for defence that was described by the retiring


deputy Supreme Allied Commander as being purely amateur. They are


saying it is more like 15,000. Eventually. It sounds woefully


melodramatic some of this, doesn't it, it is not really going to take


us off from being the second military power in the western world?


It is going to have to happen. Can you imagine the process of


negotiation. You are unpicking you know 300 years of integration in the


armed force, 300 years of integration right across the boar.


-- board. That will disrupt any effort we have. And the embassies.


You have talked to NATO member countries about the possibilty of


Scotland joining. What is the take on it? The key thing is that you


have got to be able to contribute security in order to benefit from


common security. That is the key thing. I negotiated the entry of the


former communist countries, the Baltic Republics, Romania, Slovenia


and Slovakia, that wasn't an easy process. Slovakia, the people there


were basically told if you elect Mr Mectia as the Prime Minister of


Slovakia, don't expect to get into NATO or the European Union. So you


know it is not a question of we have got an army, a Navy and air force


and we are in a strategic position and we will come in. If you are


going to disarm the nuclear deterrent of one of the founding


members of NATO you won't be welcome into a nuclear alliance. Take it to


Keith Brown. You are talking about automembership of NATO that doesn't


look like it will happen? Members of the UK Armed Forces currently who


want to join the Scottish defence force will be in horror at the


contempt of being described as Dad's Army. And George Robertson waving


around President Putin as a danger was the same person who went to


Moscow to try to get Russia to sign up to NATO. We can't take it too


seriously. We talk about break up, but we are breaking down just now.


We have an historic low of armed forces in Scotland, we have no naval


vessels, we don't carry out the basic patrols we should. General


Sharif said of the UK Government that they had cut to the bone and


hollowed out the Armed Forces we want to increase the Armed Forces.


Why would they let you in as antinuclear? 20 of the 28 countries


in NATO are non-fluke clear countries. -- nonnuclear countries.


We are situated in the North Atlantic, a very important strategic


position for NATO. We have the same standardised operating procedures


and standardised equipment that all NATO countries have, we are a


democratic country, the real issue is, most people hearing these things


bandied around will think there is no reason on earth why NATO would


not want to see an independent Scotland as NATO. You would keep


your typhoon, will you still be player on the stage? We would want


to play, the part we would want to play is a democratic, peaceful,


affluent north European country, a foreign policy and defence posture


commensurate with that position. That seems entirely sensible and far


preferable to the people of Scotland then as with George Robertson's


cronies being involved in illegal wars in Iraq. We would want to play


in the charter and play responsible international relations. If there


were strikes against ISIS in Syria, would you want to deploy there?


First of all the creedo of NATO is NATO acts together. If there is an


take all countries have license to support each other. But the nature


of that support and involvement in NATO operations is up to individual


NATO countries, what we have said is any involvement that we would have


would be democratically endorse bid the Scottish Parliament and Scottish


Government and consistent with the UN Charter. That seems a far more


statesmanlike response, rather than Tony Blair getting involved in Iraq


previously, that is sustainable. Can you imagine the kind of response you


will have from countries like Spain or Italy or like Belgium with their


own secession problems and saying we want to be part of that, they won't


thank you? I have served alongside Dutch marines and armed personnel


who get involved with NATO exercise with Scottish personnel. I wonder if


George Robertson knows how many Armed Forces personnel there are in


Scotland, it is up to Napoleonic levels. We want to undertake the


proper maritime patrols and air patrols and having reasonable


standard of defence in Scotland which we don't have currently in the


UK. We don't have defences we need, we have nuclear weapons and ?100


billion being further spent on nuclear weapons. It is ridiculous to


say you will be disarming the nuclear deterrent, it is


disingenious? I this is the SNP don't care. If it led to the


British... It doesn't literally take away our capabilities, it just means


we have to do a bit more? A week ago President Putin reminded the world


that his was a country with nuclear weapons. You wanted them in NATO.


You wanted Putin in NATO. You have made that point. It is a bit of a


joke actually for an SNP, MSP says that I went to invite Russia to join


NATO and they are the ones who are actually going to get the position


where we disarm. Thank you very much both of you.


We have three planned Bs was Alex Salmond's memorable response to the


currency question when asked during the last televised debate, much has


been made of the uncertainty of what Scotland does for money if it votes


yes, and what the markets will make of it. Today the Governor of the


Bank of England today the Treasury Select Committee that keeping the


pound would be expensive for the Scots. We set out the options that


await an independent Scotland. As much as it belongs to England it is


our pound as well as your pound. If we don't have a currency union


what's Plan B? I'm seeking a mandate for the pound sterling. I presume


the flag is a saltire, I presume the capital is Edinburgh, but you can't


tell us what currency we will have. The question of what currency an


independent Scotland would use has dominated much of the campaign. And


we're no closer to a clear answer. An independent Scotland would have


four basic currency option, the first and the preferred option of


the Scottish Government would be to join a formal currency union with


the rest of the UK. The second would be to continue to use the pound


without any formal agreement. Much as Montenegro uses the euro, or


Panama uses the US dollar. Option three would be to join the euro, or


finally it could always launch its on currency. A new currency is seen


as unrealistic in the short-term, and the euro is pretty unpopular at


the moment. So really there are two immediate options. Scotland and the


rest of the UK have shared a currency for more than 300 years. In


fact this 1909 coin is one of the first minted after the Act of Union.


Most think this sterling zone has worked pretty well. In terms of


trade linkages, existing bank loans and the wider financial system,


preserving it makes sense. It doesn't mean a formal currency union


is straight forward or likely. A formal currency union means things


carry on much as they are now. Scotland will continue to use the


pound and the Bank of England will act as the Central Bank and lender


of last resort for both Scotland and the UK. But the UK Government and


opposition have both ruled this out? There is no way they could entertain


a currency union with Scotland without having the full control over


Scotland's finances, in every respect. Of course interest rates


would be set by the Bank of England in London. Financial regulation


would be under London's control and crucially fiscal policy, that is to


say borrowing would also have to be under London's control. In fact


Scotland would end up with no independence at all, you could argue


they would be less in control of their affairs than now. In the


absence of a currency union, continuing to use sterling without a


formal agreement has become the yes campaign's Plan B. The problem with


using someone else's currency unilaterally is you have no lender


of last resort. When you get into trouble there is no Central Bank


that can issue the currency that you can go to. Not everyone agrees. The


free market think-tank, the Adam Smith Institute actually thinks


informal use of the pound would be preferable to a formal union. Using


the pound with permission means all of the same problems you have with


the eurozone, for example, banks know they


the eurozone, for example, banks much debt as they need and want to,


they can act recklessly and so on, and even if they are insolvent, they


will probably be backed up by the Central Bank. If banks know they


have to act responsibly and make reserves and they have to make


private accommodation in the form of clearing houses when they need to


access liquidity they will act more prudently. It is that prudence that


the Scottish economy could flourish with, that they would only get with


sterlingisation with an informal currency union. Scottish financial


institutions may not be entirely comfortable with no lender of last


resort. Lloyd's and other banks said they would move south of the border


with a yes vote. It could be prepared to hand back


great deal of independence using sterling, using the pound without


that is possible, I can't imagine those big business staying in


Edinburgh without a lender of last resort. Another factor complicating


this, technically all new EU member states have to commit to joining the


euro. At the moment the situation remains


uncertain, it is that uncertainty which is driving the currency market


volatility of recent days. Do discuss all this now is John Kay the


economist, an LSE fellow, and Anthony Yates, a top official from


the Bank of England and from New York, Gillian Tett, assistant editor


of the Financial Times. Do you think they will carry on using the pound?


Yes I do, I think on Independence Day if it happened nothing much need


change or would change. Some would say that is ridiculously niave, if


you are not controlling your own currency then it will all go


horribly wrong? There is an argument there but it is an argument that


says as far as currency is concerned things carry on very broadly as they


have for the last couple of hundred years. Anthony Yates, what is the


problem? Well the problem is that they won't have access to or control


over the resources that the lender of last resort has got, in turn,


backed by the Government to bail out their financial sector. The UK


Government would still bail them out, our closest partner in trade?


I'm not sure that is the case. You can see exactly this struggle going


on in the euro-area, trying to negotiate bail-outs for Greece. We


did bail out Ireland? We did, and the Scots can gamble on whether we


might repeat that after all the approbium and acrimony that will


come from political divorce, would they really think that would happen.


How is this seen internationally or where you are? Frankly from New York


it has come as quite a shock. The markets, investors and frankly


diplomats hadn't really woken up to the magnitude of the threat of the


yes vote until very recently, really this week. And frankly it looks


bizarre from the perspective of America. Americans have watched the


eurozone struggle in the last two or three years with a tension between


having a currency union without a political union and essentially


saying it is ridiculous to have this situation. The idea the Scots could


be trying to replicate the eurozone's problems looks peculiar.


It goes against the grain of all the chaos we have seen in Europe over


the last four years? Europe has certainly messed up its currency


union, that is for sure. There are two issues here and they are largely


separate issues. One of them is what money do you use in Scotland and the


other is who is underwriting failed Scottish financial institutions. Now


it is quite as instructive there to ask what these Scottish financial


institutions are. Because we're talking about Royal Bank of


Scotland, 82% owned by the British taxpayer, Lloyd's, which is not


primarily a Scottish institution. Clydesdale Bank, part of National


Australia Bank, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank and Santander. This is


sounding like it has already happened again? It has. It could go


further. We have seen not just sort of declarations about where banks


are going to redomicile, but also we have seen hits in share prices and


you will get a contraction in credit. Danny Alexander was saying


they have already warned they will go south of the border and of course


Alex Salmond has said everyone threatens this at this point in the


debate. Do you think from what you know banks do pick up and move? Well


certainly they do. I don't see what interest they would have to threaten


it, I mean they are operating for their shareholders, they are not,


they haven't any political axe to grind in this game. I believe they


are going to shift their brass plate, but that is very different


from shifting the operational activities which are taking place in


parts of Edinburgh at the moment. It is interesting, Gillian Tett, you


were talking about the falls on the market, particularly on Monday which


came as the real shock, and when I put that to the SNP they said it has


been a gradual thing, it is because of uncertainty, it would happen


whatever was going on right now because that's, you know, there is a


period of uncertainty that comes before an election, do you buy that?


Well I don't actually. What is very interesting right now is this has


been the year when global investors have really woken up to the concept


of the geopolitical events creating unexpected shocks. And frankly this


is yet another surprise that has come out of the wood work as far as


American investors are concerned and provided nasty reminder that


economics is not just about numbers but politics and culture and society


too. I was with Christine Lagarde the head of the IMF for an interview


we are running on Saturday. She points out this fascinating and


important issue that the world today is marked out by growing economic


integration and political disintegration, Scotland is one


example and Ukraine is another. That is a big problem for investors to


grapple with, as they look at countries like England and Scotland


and work out where to put the money. It is interesting to hear Scotland


and the Ukraine to be put in the same sentence and it opens up the


opportunity for more of this outside it. Is there a chance of a new


currency? I think they will be forced into it eventually. It is the


only viable and credible option that can be stuck to. I don't think they


could credibly be do anything else. You would imagine they would have to


stick the pound is what you are saying? In the next two years there


is no option, it would take two years to set up the Central Bank.


George Osborne can't stop them doing it, he can protest now but after it


has happened he has to let them use the pound, right? That I think is


the key point. To go back to what Gillian was saying, we are now


living in a world which as far as economics and capital markets are


concerned we are completely integrated. That transcends


boundaries and exactly what contract and law you are making a contract


for, where the head office of a particular institution is located. .


It isn't important any more and away from the way the politics of a


country is performing. The jobs Alex Salmond was talking about today were


those of Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.


Point I am making today is Team Scotland in terms of its breadth and


reach sun precedented in terms of campaign in Scotland, where as team


Westminster seems narrowly focussed today on the leaders of Westminster


parties who are more concerned about their own jobs. Alex Salmond talking


today, no surprise he knows the Westminster boys play rather well


for his heartland what of their jobs, or what of the unintended


ramifications that a yes vote could have on all their parties and plans.


Joining me now to discuss this is Phil Collins from the Times and


Isabel Hardman from the Spectator. It is only when you start to take


yourself into the what ifs of next Thursday that you realise how


complicated things are going to get. What are you hearing behind the


ripples of Westminster about any plot now that is building against


the PM? There is definitely a plot that is building against David


Cameron. There are enough Tory MPs who really dislike him, who are


quite keen to use a possible yes vote to get rid of him. However,


what I found really interesting in my conversations with senior Tory


MPs, backbenchers, ministers, is there is a sizeable contingent of


the party who want it to keep a cool head and who will try to do


everything they can to stop a vote of no confidence succeeding in the


Prime Minister. Do you think he could survive being Prime Minister


of a lesser Great Britain? Yes, I think he could, it would be


incredibly dishonourable even for the backbenchers in their current


move in a moment of constitutional crisis to unseat the Prime Minister.


It is ridiculous, there is no obvious replacement so I think he


will survive T but to lose even one country is careless and his


authority will be hugely diminished by this. Authority is what Cameron


has over Ed Miliband. To lose authority is a very important


commodity for him. What he would be doing is to say to the British


public in 2015 I'm going to condemn you to the next parliament for two


years which is entirely dominate bid separating from Scotland and then a


referendum on the European Union. What kind of little England


parliament would that be. Does anyone at the moment think the


election is not going to be in May if there is a yes vote? There are a


number of Tories who think if there is a yes vote it should be moved.


Moved forward straight away? Some think there should be an election


immediately, some think it should be after Scotland goes independent. We


have to repeal that and put in other legislation. That would be the


smallest thing. I think we will muddle on and carry on. What about


Ed Miliband's position in this, presumably gets the criticism for


not having got the Labour voters out in the heartlands of Scotland where


they have voters? He has a more serious party but more loyal party.


His backbenchers don't have the same anti-pathy towards him as David


Cameron. Every plot against David Cameron is 50% of the problem at


land and 50% people hating them. With Ed Miliband it would be more


about the problem in hand and whether he could persuade his


backbenchers to stick by him. I don't think Ed Miliband has a


problem right now. Underneath all the attention on Scotland Labour has


had quite a good run in the national polls. Doesn't have a problem now, I


think he has in due course. To be the leader of a Government which is


elected with 40 Scottish MPs who are soon to be declared foreign


nationals would be entirely legitimate.


Just talk us through, without looking ahead too far, but we have


this referendum fixed for 2017, which would then be without


Scotland. What impact would that have? There is no evidence actually


that the electorate of Scotland are more pro-EU than the overall


electorate. It won't make a huge difference you haven't got the


Scottish people voting in that. But the authority of the Prime Minister


will have been diminished. What you have seen in this campaign is that


arguments about risk really struggle to work and there is a real strong


anti-politics thread to this whole referendum campaign. So if you have


got all the political establishment arguing for one side, the status


quo, stay where we are, and all the other side arguing emotionally to


leave. That can really work. You could get a replay of this. It makes


it a very, very tricky couple of years, and especially under a


Cameron Government. Thank you very much for coming in.


John Kerry has arrived in Baghdad to attempt to forge a new coalition of


the willing. Middle East nations united against ISIS, and to affirm


the international community's duty to protect Iraq. Obama will have a


speech tomorrow morning to pose an escalation to the military response


in the region, stopping short of promising boots on the ground, while


Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Syria are united in their opposition to ISIS,


will Kerry help mould this unlikely coalition. Talk us through this?


We're expecting a significant milestone, there will be another in


two weeks on the fringes of the General Assembly meeting in New


York. We think we will get tonight an intensification of what America


has been doing. More air strikes, more US troops to go to Iraq to


train and advise, more Iraqi forces to be stood up. They are talking


about a National Guard that would include special Sunni and Kurd


units, trying to knit the nation back together again. The thing we


won't get an answer on is whether or not the strikes will extend into


Syria at this point. My hunch would be no, not yet. What position would


America be in vis a vis Assad? If they want, well it is an open


question in terms of legality, it is simpler with regard to Iraq. The


position is still complicated with regard to Syria. The other thing


that will happen and we think it will happen at the meeting in New


York in two weeks time is the issue of a wider inter-National Coalition.


It is at that point the UK might be asked to join strike, but the


neighbours of Syria and Iraq will be asked to do a lot more. Turkey,


Saudi Arabia, Jordan, those countries, they are the ones who


will be asked in two weeks time to step forward. Key things like


couldn't the Turk take slightly more control of that border. They will be


asked to nail their commitments to the sticking place on that. Frankly


we don't know yet how committed some of those countries like Turkey are


to making the new US strategy work. There is a lot of moving parts and


unanswered questions. Thank you very much indeed. From


Washington is Richard Clarke, a senior figure in the Clinton and


Bush administration's National Security Council, who resigned from


service in 2003 and remains critical of the US Government's disregard


towards the threat of terrorism. We talk to him now. You tried to warn


the Bush administration about Al Qaeda in spring 2001, you were


ignored, why did that happen? That's a topic one can talk about for


hours. But essentially the Bush administration came in with its own


agenda. And its agenda did not include worrying about Al-Qaeda. And


it wasn't changed by facts. And that is much the same situation that we


found with Obama in the last few months. Where he wanted his agenda


to be something other than worrying about terrorism in the Middle East.


For a long time the facts didn't change the White House priorities.


Do you think he actually ignored warnings then of rising Islamist


militia in Syria. Do you know that? Certainly, if you look at public


statements made by people in his administration, in the state


department, for example, and the intelligence community. Statements


they made in congressional hearings and inquiries. They were warning,


very dramatically, and yet the administration did very little over


the course of this year until the last month.


So do you think this is kneejerk now what he's doing. Do you think he's


trying to catch up for time or is it the right response too late? It is


the exact opposite of kneejerk. This President is known for being very


cautious, very deliberative, very analytical, very coldly calculating


and not being swayed by the media and not being swayed by emotion. And


he, more than anything else, wants to avoid doing what past Presidents


have done. Which is to make decisions about the use of US


military force in the Middle East without due consideration. So he has


been very, very slow in coming to this decision. Not kneejerk at all.


Thank you very much. While we have been on air Clydesdale Bank have


said they will also leave Scotland in the event of a yes vote. A sadly


that is all we have time for tonight. Kirsty is here tomorrow,


good night from all of us here. It was a beautiful day today up and


down the UK. More fine weather in the forecast. Subtle variations


Download Subtitles