19/09/2014 Newsnight


The stories behind the day's headlines. From Edinburgh and London, what next for Scotland? And what next for England? With Kirsty Wark and Andrew Neil.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The noes win on the back of a wow, will Westminster keep its word? I


think the people of Scotland should told the leadership at Westminster's


feet to the fire. Now the millions of voices in England must be heard.


Westminster will never go 50-50 with Scotland, it is never going to


happen, they are big daddy. It means big change in our politics and


constitution. We must absolutely accept that things are never going


to be the same again. As the defeated Alex Salmond steps aside,


we will ask what mice will Scotland extract for the price of the union.


Here the Scottish referendum is provoking constitutional upheaval


across the UK, with talk of English votes for English laws and even its


own parliament, is it just talk? Tam Dayell has been pointing our our


constitutional flaws for years. Good evening from Edinburgh, the


country had no sooner woken up some what dazed and drained from the


intensity of the past few weeks than Alex Salmond, Scotland's First


Minister took everyone by surprise. Not even his friends saw his


resignation coming. There will be a new First Minister of Scotland and


it is very likely it will be a woman, his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon,


that is for the future. Today for many people in Scotland, politicised


for the first time, it is still about digesting the result, and a no


to independence and wiping away tears of sorrow and join, and asking


what will change. It has been a strange day in


Scotland's biggest city, where voters chose yes, even though the


country chose no. There has been disappointment and some celebration,


some relief, but also commiseration. And as well as that, senior


political resignation, which took many believers in the yes cause by


complete surprise. Also tonight in the city's main square, appalling


scenes, minor scuffles, but a group of unionists appeared to be


organised arriving in George Square intent on causing trouble. The


tensions between them were mainly between them and the police rather


than a tense stand-off between yes and no. All the same it has been an


unpleasant end to a day when most people have been absorbing the


result. And a complete contrast to the somber but peaceful scenes in


George Square, when yes voters heard the news of Alex Salmond's


resignation. Events that were captured using flash photo--y.


The yes campaign's ad hoc and disappointed heart, tears and anger,


not just for Alex Salmond, but for their defeat. Salmond is saying he's


standing down because David Cameron is refusing to do a second reading


of the bill that would have given us the powers that they promised they


would give us and that's why he's standing down. Alex Salmond's


departure was not inevitable, although last night his


disappointment was blatant. But today standing down with


characteristic guile, he played to his country and his cause. It has


been the privilege of my life to serve as First Minister, as I said


often enough during this referendum campaign, this is a process which is


not about me, or the SNP or any political party, it is much, much


more important than that. The position is this, we lost the


referendum vote, but Scotland can still carry the political


initiative. Scotland can still emerge as the real winner. For me as


leader my time is nearly over. But for Scotland the campaign continues


and the dream shall never die. Have you heard that Alex Salmond has


resigned what do you think about that? It is a shame to see him go, I


have never been an SNP voter but I think he was a great politician. It


is unfair, he has worked really hard for this for so long. He said he's


standing down, he will leave? Are you making this up? I'm not making


it up. The most dynamic and effective politician we have had


here for the last seven years, you cannot knock that. Few here believe


Alex Salmond deserves any kind of retribution, and his political exit


shouldn't diminish his fundamental achievement, taking the SNP from


what was a fringe party, to the Government at Hollyrood, and then


creating a political movement with enghee that captured nearly half of


the Scottish population. Yet a majority of voters found his


arguments wanting. Yes, the number of votes 1,617,989. No the number of


votes, 2,000926. The arguments won out, what currency would an


independent Scotland use, were pensions safe? What about the ties


of union. We have chosen unity over division and positive change rather


than needless separation. Today is a momentous result for Scotland and


also for the United Kingdom as a whole. By confirming our place


within the union, we have reaffirmed all that we have in common. And the


political divide may take time to fade, Glasgow, Scotland's biggest


city, with the proud industrial as well as political past, was one of


the places where voters chose independence, so why did no win? We


are being asked to vote for no currency, there was never going to


be a currency union, it was stupidity on stilts what was being


put forward. And I'm actually surprised it wasn't a greater no. I


think it is safe to say fear, sometimes a bit of selfishness,


self-preservation, I know a lot of people who did say they were voting


no it was about looking after themselves. But even in Glasgow that


decision has brought quiet relief. This city chose yes, and the


unionists' nerves of the last few weeks were very real. But we know


now the vast majority of people who said no made their minds up more


than a year ago, and simply didn't budge. Support for independence was


always more fluid and in the end, yesterday, simply was not enough.


Despite the three UK parties promises of more power for Scotland,


for some, the chance of change has gone. I don't know what we are


fighting for. So... I thought I would come down here and see people


standing around and pushing for something but there's nothing.


That's been filled on some of Glasgow's street with old prejudice.


Tonight a stand-off, not between yes and no campaigners, but what appears


to be a unionist group of hooligans bearing Union Jacks, spoiling for a


fight. Stirring anomosities of the past. The BBC's Alan Little, who has


been following the referendum from the start is here. We are talking


about all sorts of implications for the unfortunately kingdom, but


nobody saw Alex Salmond's resignation coming? When I came off


air with you last night, the SNP and Scottish Government special advisers


were still planning for the victory speech, that would take place in 3.


04 in the morning. And we were making preparations to go and film


that. It all changed in the middle of the night. When you think about


it, it has been an extraordinary career. He bequeaths his successor,


almost certainly Nicola Sturgeon, 1. 6 million people voting for Scotland


to leave the United Kingdom, a decade ago that was impossible. He's


First Minister of Scotland, not just the leader of the SNP and a lot of


people feel that perhaps he led them all wait up and there has been a


vote, but yes he's still the First Minister, do they feel in a sense


destablised and like that fella said, a bit shell shocked by it all?


People are shell shocked by it, it happened a few hours ago and nobody


saw it coming. The implications haven't settled in. He did this


before, he resigned as SNP leader, and he wasn't First Minister, and we


never found out why he went. After his first ten-year stint as leader


he as an unreadable figure. He had to make a decision, go now or fight


the next election for 2016 and stay on for a few more years. Do I stay


on or go at a high water mark of this achievement. Looks like that


was the calculation, who knows. What he said today, he said he would be


the SMP, but he believed you didn't have to be at the pinnacle all the


time. Nicola Sturgeon became on in leaps and bounds and she was the


more persuasive figure in the debate. She's out there and ready.


Just after 7.00 this morning, David Cameron stood outside Downing Street


and announced what he called a devolution revolution, which would


deliver a balanced settlement and quick. We have heard the settled


will of the Scottish people, and now the voices of the millions in


England must be heard, he said. This rebalancing is designed, in part,


finally to nail the famous West Lothian Question, first raised by


Tam Dayell in 1977, ahead of a 1979 referendum on devolution. Why can


MPs on Scotland can vote in legislation that applies only to


England, such as education, but English MPs cannot vote in the same


set of affairs. That will now end, says the Prime Minister, but how. I


went to see Tam Dayell and asked if after 37 years he now felt


vindicated? I don't go round saying "I told you so", I feel rather in


the position of Cassandra, do you remember Cassandra, she warned the


trojans of impending doom. The trouble was that nobody believed


her. And I was in that position because you remember very well that


there was considerable, not unpleasant, but ridicule about my


view. Why did you not speak out during the campaign? There were


people going out night after night to try their best to save the union.


And it would be an absolutely betrayal by me of their efforts if I


was to come on your programme, you asked me five days in succession,


and say what I really thought that the promises made by the three party


leaders were absolute rubbish. And they shouldn't have made them. And


Gordon Brown should not have made the speech that he did without the


authority. It is interesting you say he didn't have the authority to say


what he did, some people say his intervention helped the Better


Together vote in the end, but you don't think he had the authority to


make that promise? I don't know whether his intervention made a


difference. It may have been a plus, it may have been neutral, but my


hunch is that it was a minus. With these last-minute promises some


people thought well look we might as well go for the SNP and the real


McCoy, rather than all these last-minute promises. But that


didn't happen in the end, but the last-minute promises are here with


us. What do you make of the way that David Cameron has reacted today? I


don't think that the timetable is at all real. You see when it comes to


England I'm for the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, I'm not


negative at all. I will tell you why. Those people up in


Aberdeenshire want to be run from Aberdeen, and not from Edinburgh.


Finally the West Lothian Question is to be answered, with the idea that


there will be English votes for English MPs? What would happen in


the event of a Labour Government trying to enact domestic legislation


do you think without the aid of Scottish Labour MPs? I think it


would be wrong in principle for a Labour Government to impose, because


that's the correct word legislation in England, using a Scottish


majority, where those Scottish MPs had absolutely no say in their own


place. But what should Ed Miliband do? Because he now says that he will


look at any proposals put forward, what role should he play? I think


he's got to face up to it that it is deeply wrong to try to pretend that


Scottish MPs should vote decisively in English affairs. Even if it means


an in coming English Government could not get legislation through,


that is something they would have to deal with? It is a question of right


and wrong. If the West Lothian Question, when you have done so much


in your career, the West Lothian Question has been defining, you talk


about Cassandra, but the defining moment. Surely you must be pleased


that here you are, able to discuss this now, at this point where


something radical is supposed to be happening. No, pleased would be the


wrong word. I mean I'm extremely concerned about the future of


Scotland. But as a parliamentarian, you must at least surely applaud the


turnout, because people felt politically engaged? I certainly


applaud the turnout. But were they politically engaged. They may have


been politically engaged on issues such as deprivation and the health


service. Were they politically engaged in the constitutional


arrangements of the United Kingdom, I think less. It is just as well you


are still politically engaged in the constitutional issues then, isn't


it? Yes, but it doesn't mean that the rest of the world are. Yes, I'm


very engaged in it. Because I don't want the break up of Britain. Tam


Dayell, thank you very much indeed. How is Westminster reacting to all


of this? Here is Andrew Neil in the London studio? Thank you.


The existential threat has lifted but the remaking of the British


constitution has just begun. Westminster's political leaders were


so panicked by the prospect of a yes vote that they outsourced further


Scottish devolution to Gordon Brown. He dusted down a blueprint from one


of his old books which he said was nothing less than a modern version


of Home Rule. Tory backbenchers and a few cabinet ministers furious at


the lack of consultation said to David Cameron, fair enough, but only


if England is cut in on the devolutionary action too.


A new dawn this morning for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom


too. For some days Westminster politics had been suspended as the


three political parties pulled together to keep Britain together.


But where there was harmony 24 hours Earl yes, at dawn, David Cameron


brought discord. We have heard the voice of Scotland, and now the


millions of voices of England must also be heard. The question of


English votes for English laws, the so called West Lothian Question,


requires a decisive answer. Discord because targeting Scottish and


largely Labour MPs was something Ed Miliband just wouldn't or couldn't


support. The man who used to live on this street, Gordon Brown, had in


the last ten days created problems for his successors, for David


Cameron the Tory Party were in a fury at Gordon Brown's plan to hand


powers to Scotland and not England. Instead, the focus switched to


Labour's response. We will deliver on stronger powers, for a stronger


Scottish Parliament, a stronger Scotland, and I know that all-party


leaders will meet their commitments to deliver on that promise. He


didn't address the English question, Labour was more Scottish MPs and


doesn't want to. After the cross-party truce of the last few


weeks David Cameron performed a dawn raid on Ed Miliband, at 7.00 in the


morning he announced plans to protect English MPs and English laws


challenging the Labour leader in two days. If Ed Miliband doesn't move to


protect English MPs, he's vulnerable to take from UKIP, and if Ed


Miliband does move to limit the powers of Scottish MPs, he makes a


life of future Labour Governments very difficult indeed. This morning,


with one eye on the last vote, the Scottish referendum, David Cameron


had his eyes firmly on the next vote, the general election.


William Hague will now work out how to give more power to England at the


same time as to Scotland by next January. This man, who represents


the Tory backbenchers has some ideas.


It makes sense to have a separate English parliament with all of the


cost, bureaucracy that would go with that, but I think it would be


perfectly possible to have English members of the Westminster


parliament sitting part of the week, perhaps, on English legislation and


part of the week on United Kingdom matters.


But in a two-tier parliament a Tory administration would be more likely


on English-only days, and Labour administrations on UK days. Which


one is more important isn't clear? You don't preserve the union with a


hollowed out parliament that doesn't sustain properly a national


executive. That would be the consequence of this idea that has


been mooted, that one has a UK parliament that only sits one or two


days a week as a national parliament, the rest of the time it


is an English parliament only. I would be very, very against that.


Labour, furious at what they thought was Tory political opportunism, by


the afternoon came out for a constitutional committee. Labour


were furious at the Tories political opportunism today. By the afternoon


they finally came out for a constitutional committee. We need


significantly great devolution of power in England, because I think


that we have seen devolution in Scotland and Wales work, and weed


into to see that greater devolution in England. We have set out


proposals to devolve to English local Government and want to go


further. The Liberal Democrats have embraced a grand committee, Lord


McKay will chair, he will allow non-English MPs to stay in


parliament. Despite first move advantage, Downing Street still has


questions to answer from its own. At the moment devolved politicians have


a free hit. They can promise all sorts of exciting public goods and


lay the blame of non-delivery on nasty, horrid selfish Westminster


politicians. I want to put the stick back on them, it is important voting


in a devolved assembly, you vote on how much they will tax you or give


you, that should be the thread running across the settlement. Until


we can get that into all constituent starts in the UKick Dom, I wouldn't


go in a rush anywhere, and the first thing is to recall parliament.


Labour won't match Tory plans on English laws, believe arcane issues


don't decide elections. They are right, they don't. But UKIP might


ensure English identity does. Parliament will have to watch out


that the English, the happy men of the blessed plot stay that way. The


Tories' plan nor more devolution means running a coach and horse


through the rest of our constitution in a matter of weeks or months, we


thought they might like to come on the programme and explain what they


are doing, but they declined. It is only a 1,000-year-old constitution.


We speak to Chuka Umunna, welcome to the Newsnight. We have got to


Scottish votes for Scottish laws, with more devolution we will have


more Scottish votes for Scottish law, why not English votes for


English laws? Let's see the proposals from the Government. This


is a great moment. It is good that people are talking about our


politics, how we do things, sorting out this system we have. What is


wrong with the principle of English votes for English laws? I think the


problem with the package we have just seen is it is obsessed with


Westminster. You have MPs talking aboutp me. Actually what we need to


be doing is pushing power down and out of Westminster into our regions,


into the rest of the country. Let's give power to the people. Why can't


that done been the context of a Scottish Demos, and why not an


English one that can do that if it wants? We haven't seen the exact


proposals they will come forward. What is wrong with the principle?


Let me say, the Scottish have just vote today remain part of our union,


and now this seeks to exclude Scottish MPs. What we want to come


up with a constitutional settlement that is inclusive and gives people


power. Another thing that hasn't been noted on this I'm a London MP,


there are certain issues which are devolved down to the mayor and the


Greater London Authority. Are you going to therefore suggest I should


be excluded from things. The power of the London Assembly is nothing


like the Scottish Parliament? It is a red herring the London Assembly


and you know it? What about Welsh MPs with the Welsh Assembly and


Northern Irish MPs. Perhaps Perhaps they shouldn't vote on English


matters? We don't want to have a second class of member. But we have


a second class of MP at the moment, Scottish MPs cannot vote on any


matters to do with health and education that affect their own


constituencies, English MPs can on their constituencies. There are two


classes of MPs. Let me ask you this point, if Scotland gets to set its


own income tax, which is one of the proposals of Gordon Brown's Home


Rule, the parliament in Edinburgh will set its own income tax for


Scots, why should Scottish MPs vote on income tax level force the rest


of the UK? This is something that is being looked at. What is the answer?


The Government hasn't come forward with it. What is your answer? We


would set up and it is not grand committee or constitutional


committee. We will set up a constitutional convention, actually


similar to the constitutional convention we set up prior to


devolving. How does that work? We have said we will do, initially we


will come forward with details on this in the next few months or so,


we will have a dialogue in the regions and cities. How long of


giving it? If you let me finish my sentence, of England and what we are


aiming to do is a bottom-up process. No sir good the great and the good


coming on to programmes like this, in term, dictating to people what we


will do with the constitution. That is why so many people are being


switched off from our politics. You have not asked a single question


directly? In terms of the constitutional convention there will


be a dialogue, we will come forward with details in the coming weeks. In


the autumn of 2015 we will set up the constitutional convention, which


will be bottom up, involvingive wok society. You likened it before we


came on air there to the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Didn't


you? It is him later. How long did that sit for? That sat for some


time. Obviously you don't want a process dragging out for some time.


It was exactly six years? We are not talking about six years in this


instance stance. How long? The Prime Minister said Scottish and English


devolution should move in tandem and go together, which could delay the


Scottish devolution? You wanted an inclusive settlement, do you agree


with that? I don't think there is any proposal on the day to delay the


timetable, which has been set out for the proposed devolution in


respect of Scotland. In terms of what happens in England, we haven't


actually seen any proposals from the Prime Minister at all on that. All


we have seen is a proposal to set up a cabinet committee, very


Westminster focussed, headeded by a former leader of the Conservative


Party, William Hague, I don't think that will cut it with the British


people, given that people are hired with the whole way a that the system


is run. The yes campaign, and the yes vote showed that Labour is still


losing votes of white working-class males. The election, even though you


won, is something of a crisis for Scottish Labour. Is that because it


is widely seen as being run by nonentities that can't hold the old


Labour vote together? I don't that characterisation. We have just had a


no vote, by some margin that many didn't expect. You had Team Labour


come together, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Alastair Darling, the whole


team came together and made and won the argument. If it is not run by a


bunch of nonentities, other than the Scottish Labour leader could you


name three members of the Labour Shadow Cabinet? Of our Shadow


Cabinet. In Scotland? You have got Joanne Lamont. Kesia D ougdale. What


does she do? Not entirely sure. She's education. Can you name more?


No, I'm not a Scott. You don't know who your Scottish cabinet is in


Scotland? I'm not a Scottish MP or a member of the Scottish Parliament.


We better leave it there, I will give you the list. Thank you.


Joining us now we have former Conservative and peer Michael


Heseltine. You recommended a radical decentralisation from Whitehall to


local Government. Good evening, can I just get your view on the West


Lothian Question, do you believe it should be answered with English


votes for English laws? Yes. And that would solve it for you, you are


on the Prime Minister's side on that. Would that be enough for


devolution in England or what more needs to be done? Well, HIV the


privilege of producing reports for the Prime Minister and he through


his minister, Greg Clarke, is now implementing what are pace-changing


devolution arrangements. If you go to Manchester, Liverpool or Coventry


and Warwick last week, they are entering into arrangements with


central Government to take much more discretion into their own controls


through the Local Enterprise Partnerships. Very significant


funds. I mean about three months ago the Chancellor was able to offer ?6


billion worth of selected programmes which had been chosen by the local


people. This is only the beginning, but the idea that we have got to


spend months, or in Labour's terms having an arrangement some time at


the end of the next year, we are already doing these things. The


essence is to do it on a bigger scale with greater urgency. What you


are talking about is more decentralisation to the big cities


and regions around the big cities. What has been talked about in your


party? I'm sorry, sorry, we must. Let me finish the question and you


can answer it? You have made a statement that is not true. We are


talking about devolution to 39 component units of England. Every


part of the country is included. Will they have tax-raising powers?


Including the rural areas. No. It is decentralisation not devolution. If


I could ask my question, what I want to know is this? Andrew listen are


you interviewing yourself or me. I'm trying to ask my question so you can


answer it? No, but you keep asserting things that are not true.


In the deal with Manchester they have an arrangement if where if they


get extra development taking place, they keep a part of the proceeds


that arise from that development. They have been authorised to borrow


money on the basis that there is a sharing of the returns on that


money. So these are the beginnings of examples where the Government is


already moving forward. No-one pretends it is the ultimate


solution, but it is all already happening under this Government. Now


to my question, in addition to all that, should there be what is good


enough for the Scots is it good enough for the English, should they


have an English demoss, an English arrangement where they set the


framework and the laws in which this decentralisingation takes place. --


decentralisation takes place? I don't see an idea to appeal to the


majority of the the English parliament, saying all these others


will have these powers but you can't. How could you seriously think


a Government could ask those members of the parliament that represent


English constituencies to vote for that. I don't think they will do it.


I don't think the Government will ask them to, but I think if they did


ask them to they wouldn't get the stuff through the Commons. What you


are saying is if it is good enough for the Scots, and good enough for


the Welsh, and the Northern Irish, it should be good enough for the


English? I wouldn't use those words, I would say we need a decent system


of governing this country and it should lie fairly across the four


components of the United Kingdom. In an equal way? Equal is a difficult


word because you have got all sorts of different resources and different


equalisation programmes and you have to work all that out. Only a central


Government can do that. You have got to realise that you are not going to


hand over control to Scotland to its economy because they are so


interwoven with the United Kingdom economy, as the no vote rightly said


and persuaded people. So there has to be a Chancellor, you know, you


can only have one person in charge of the Treasury. I got my question


out, and I might even have got an answer, thank you very much.


So England devolution is clearly on the agenda at last, there is even


talk of new powers for Cardiff and Belfast. If it is good enough for


Scotland it is good enough for the rest of us. What is this West


Lothian Question all the politicians and pundits have been talking about?


What is the answer? Is there more than one, two or three?


Does Britain need another parliament? At the moment


Westminster is the national UK legislature and the local


legislature for England. So a Scottish MP can vote say on English


education, yet an MP for England cannot vote on Scottish education


because it is devolved to Hollyrood. That oddity is known as the West


Lothian Question. If we were starting from scratch and


money were no object the simplest way to answer the West Lothian


Question would simply be to open a new English parliament, perhaps in


Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds. We would devolve power to it as in


Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That will give you a


parliament for each constituent nature in the union. They could


taken a interest in local schools and hospitals and the UK wide could


do federal topic, setting a UK budget, defence, foreign policy.


That sort of thing. Alternatively, if you want to save


yourself the cost of setting up a whole new English parliament and


capital, then you could have the existing MPs with English seats to


meet on their own without the other MPs to debate and discuss English


matters. The so called English votes for English laws. That seems the


likeliest proposal to come from the Conservatives, but the powers


devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are wielded by


local leaders. If you were to devolve power to England, you would


need a similar sort of executive that would answer to England's local


legislatures. That executive need not be very big, it is hard to see


how devolution in England would work if the country didn't have its own


First Minister. For example say there was a budget dispute between


the four countries who would stand up for England. Suppose Labour was


not collected UK wide for Government, but England had voted


for a Conservative Government. Why shouldn't its voters be allowed to


have the Government they chose. What kind of devolution is that? There is


one big problem in introducing this constitution, England, 84% of the


population. It would dominate a UK-wide federal parliament and vote


itself favours at the expense of other nations. That is not an


unfamiliar problem for constitution righters, it is one the US has had


to deal with. We could borrow one of their solutions, we could give each


of the four countries in the UK the same number of peers. That would


mean the people of Belfast would have more representation from people


in Bristol. It is not direct democracy but a way to aDom Kate the


four nationalities within our country.


Proposals for a form are likely to fall well short on that. The Tories


are even cool on having an English First Minister. But massive reforms


at break neck need is coming. More power is devolved from Westminster


so the problem is growing, but votes for Englishmen on English topics is


very rare to happen. Those walking the corridors of


power, and not changing the rules of the game is often a virtue.


We're not now just talking about more powers for Edinburgh. We're


looking at a constitutional convulsion engulfing the whole of


the UK. David Cameron has provided draft


legislation in January, is that Israel feesable in


I'm joined by Dominic Grieve, isn't it that David Cameron is trying to


make a new constitution for the whole of the UK on the back of a fag


packet? There is no doubt lots of people are saying lots of things and


wanting things to happen quickly. I think it is all well intentioned and


I think it is well intentioned from the leaders of all maintained


parties at Westminster. But the reality is it will take time to do.


One thing I'm absolutely sure about, unless we do it as a whole it won't


work. The problem we had with the


devolution package which I participated in parliament, is it


was a top-down Westminster parts with bits of sovereignty. The


message I take away from the referendum is people, apart from the


question of Scottish independence, there was a bigger issue, how are we


governed, a general sense of detatchment from politics. A sense


of aversion to the political class who run the country. A sense that


there is no difference between them and no authenticity, and a desire


for change. The question for me as a politician is can we respond to


this. I think we can, but whilst we certainly mustn't take a huge amount


of time over it, we mustn't rush it either. Because it must be done as a


whole. And the danger is that what seems to have happened is it looks


to a lot of people outside that David Cameron has bounced into this.


Not only that he was almost a rabbit in the headlights, I will deliver


this, first draft legislation he said this morning by January. We


hear the conversation that Andrew was having. What are the chances, if


you are a betting man, what are the chances of delivering first draft


legislation in January? We can sketch out by January. Ideas. But


the idea we would have the exercise needed, in my judge, we will push


this thing forward and get acceptance across the UK, I don't


think that is possible. There are extra powers in Scotland.


I really think people say up here sometimes that is not true. You are


not going to deliver T I think there is a real retire to deliver that. We


have to solve the West Lothian Question, or quite frankly England


will go bang at some point, there is real resentment in the current


system. Is there a way of fixing it and delivering an English


parliament? I think an English parliament would be very difficult,


it would be so dominant within the union. I think there are ways to


resolve it within the context of a UK parliament but with English laws


being ultimately reserved for legislation by English MPs. It can


be done and it is complex but with goodwill it can be achieved. The


Welsh devolutionlement needs to be looked at. From my time in


parliament nobody knows what the paper means. We are often in dispute


over the interpretation over a cack-handed piece of legislation.


Thank you. We discuss the political ruction of


the day with Beth Rigby deputy political editor at the Financial


Times, and Steve Richards for the Independent. The big news today is


that the union survived. But I would suggest that the second story is the


way that Mr Cameron has now linked to the promised extra devolution to


Scotland, which is a vow he and other leaders have made. Now with


extra devolution for England, for they are linked, we have to go in


tandem. David Cameron has played a political blinder in that sense


today. He has said we will deliver as a cross-party agreement Scottish


devolution. But I will layer over that and on to that a pledge to give


English votes to English people. In doing so he has created a


constitutional minefield. And the problem is whether he can deliver


it. I would suggest he can't deliver it, on the Gordon Brown timetable.


He may be able to agree the extra Scottish devolution, although there


is argy bargy about that. But he cannot, starting from a standing


start agree the English devolution as well? That what has changed


today. He has said very clearly the pace of change is coupled with


England. All constitutional change is driven by party self-interest. No


party will say we will back something that harms us. However


pure and noble it might seem in principle. The Tory position has


been pretty consistent for a long time about English MPs having power


over English laws. What has changed today is the coupling with the


Scottish legislation, this is all meant to be sorted by January. It is


bonkers, it won't be. The politics and the self-interest is obvious,


but it can't be done in that timetable. I would say that what was


clever about what David Cameron did this morning, he came out of the


blocks at 7.00am, he promised to solve the West Lothian Question and


resolve t he saw off Nigel Farage who the Tories were really concerned


would try to present himself as a sort of English Salmond. But in


doing so he set a train of constitutional consequences that he


might not be able to deliver on. And the problem is that now having


killed off the imminent people from the Tory Party, a few of them want


the dual process to work. What you have said is right. Mr Cameron,


having won the referendum and thought at one stage he may have


lost it, he has done this from a sense of weakness. There was massive


Tory backbench rebellion coming in against what he had outsourced to


Gordon Brown and on top of that reinforce the Barnet formula for


Scotland. Forget about self-industry, he had no choice but


to make the offer and deliver it by the Tory MPs. What is interesting,


and Nick they have broadly agreed on the principle of the English votes


for English laws. But the timetable, I have heard a whole range, Rifkind


and Clarke and others, saying this has to be thought through carefully.


He has got them on board with the principle but real practical


problems. This is Linton Crosby, sticking their feet to the fire.


They are going to get Labour and they are worried about UKIP and


depict Labour as the anti-part re party. Lyndon's hands are all over


it, an historic day for Britain. He gets the Prime Minister to present


it as a one question on the West Lothian Question which has been in


the Tory manifesto as something to deliver for in a number of years. I


want to ask you. Gordon Brown. The new leader of the Scottish Labour?


Who knows. The man who will come to the Commons again, to fight, to make


sure that Westminster delivers on its promise to the Scottish people?


Yeah, well this whole thing has given him a cause, he hasn't gone


through a complete met at that met huge change. When he Dame Shadow


Chancellor in 1992, he felt he had to go into a tonal straitjacket of


which there was no escape until the referendum campaign and he found an


authentic voice. He will be player in future negotiation as well.


That's it from London. Back to Edinburgh.


Now Alex Salmond has failed to secure independence for Scotland,


but he may have succeeded in triggering greater devolution across


the UK. Has Alex Salmond with his great charisma deliver the most that


could be achieved. Or has a broader political movement in Scotland been


galvanised by the campaign. We will discuss that with the panel here


shortly. Outside the Scottish Parliament this


evening as the light faded a group of yes supporters gathered, perhaps


for consolation, perhaps for company. Even handing out some


leftover balloons couldn't mask the atmosphere of utter deflation. The


Scottish Parliament was specifically designed by Labour, to "kill


nationalism stone dead". Yet Alex Salmond was able to take it and bend


it towards his political objective, firstly taking over the Government


of Scotland, and then launching a bid for independence that took


nearly half the country with him. As a consumate political operator he


was able to exploit the unlikely scenario of being the leader of an


organisation. And put himself as a Scottish every man and exploit


Labour's difficulty, the Iraq War and the Blair-Brown tension, and in


2011 amid a perfect political storm say hey I'm the leader of the


natural party of the Government, return me to Government ah he got an


overall majority, as well as killing nationalism stone dead, this place


was to deprive every single party of an overall majority and he broke the


system. Salmond's success didn't end there he managed to turn what was a


decidedly minority taste for independence into a main treatment


mass campaign that drew in disa-affected voters other parties


had left behind or never reached. He was clearly no Obama, his message of


hope and change got everyone's attention, the bright lights of the


the media someone shone on him. -- shone on him. He managed to win over


Scottish voters to the cause of nationalism. But going into the


post-Salmond and post-referendum era can they hang on to them? There is a


difference between voting in a referendum where you can see clearly


the link between your vote and it comes into an outcome and it is a


simple yes or no question. Asking them to vote at a general election


might be given, it is about the link between your voice and what happens


in the policy terms is mediated between political parties and


discussions after the election. There is a school of thought that


suggests the stars will never again be as perfectly aligned for


nationalism. Not least having an old Eatonian Conservative Prime Minister


pushing through a programme of austerity.


In future, of course, they will trade upon what might have been. The


yes campaign sold independence as this beguiling product, where all


your dreams could come true. An independent Scotland can be whatever


you wanted it to be. Of course it is difficult for the other side to


counter the argument, which I'm sure they will make in the future and


Nicola Sturgeon will make in the future. Just think what you could


have had if you voted yes? Scottish nationalism clearly isn't going


away. But how it moves forward after this defeat depends on many factors.


Who leads after Alex Salmond and other parties deal with the


grievances of question voters. If devolution didn't kill nationalism


stone dead, there is no reason to think that even more devolution will


do the trick either. That was David Grossman, here with


me is Alan Little, and the chronicler of Scotland tomorrow


Devine and one of his ancestors signed the Act of Union.


A lot to chew over, big events. Tom you called the UK a failed and


corrupt state. The truth of the matter is 55% of those who voted


from an 85% turnover didn't agree with you? I didn't say it was a


corrupted state but a failed state. It will be until there are


substantial changes in it over the next several years. The changes I


would like to see are these. One One is to ensure the promises are


fulfilled as soon as possible. The promises to Scotland. It is more


fundamentally significant to than that. To rebalance the union state.


It has to be rebalanced in my view now that a we are going in a federal


or that direction. If not they will be back here very soon. You said you


were a you reluctant sign up for independence, you must be


disappointed? I expected a no vote between 2-3%. I think Mr Salmond and


I pay tribute to him is probably, well including the great Secretary


of State in Scotland, during the Second World War, as the politician


in Scotland who has made the greatest impact on politics. I come


back to your question, which was... My question was were you not


disappointed? No, because I expected it to happen. You were one of these


people who was not a nationalist, in the sense of being a member of the


SNP, but you saw the galvanising of the whole political discourse, must


have been disappointed? I'm gutted, I would say I'm heartbroken I would


say there are lots of people out there watching what has happened


here. The Scots have been awarded voting no by being asked to go to


the back of the constitutional queue within one day of voting. So


Westminster parties can play games with one another to achieve


political power. You are shaking your head? I think it is completely


the reverse of what happened. I think what happened by voting no is


Scotland has Regal vanised itself in an -- galvanised itself. Far from no


being a relative vote. The Scots have seen it as a highly positive


votealvanised itself. Far from no being a relative vote. The Scots


have seen it as a highly positive vote. I think we are at the position


of something great. The historian's view of whether or not the sense of


nationalism was embodied in Alex Salmond and whether you think there


will be a disapation there or people will feel, we talked earlier about


this, there is disappointed. That whole idea that this idea that


everybody has been galvanised by politics is a passing thing. A lot


of people will be disappointed but a lot has been achieved. The peaceful


ballot box nature of this whole discussion. How many people have


been arrested? Anyone kill? Compare this I have just come from India, to


the Kashmir issue. Land mass trying to breakthrough and 100 people


killed every month. There has been some trouble I must say of two


people. It is people falling out of the pub and that is the violence.


You have to take a step back and remember in world terms to have a


passionate discussion about the future of an entire people. How many


people arrested and no-one killed. Isn't it extraordinary that


Glasgow's second city of empire voted no. It is interesting how much


of the country didn't. To have Edinburgh, Lothians, Orkneys, there


is no surprise, much of the rest of the country which could have voted


yes didn't. To me that was a huge surprise. We started in March or


April at 31% we were told it wouldn't increase. The reason is did


was because of a whole plethora groups. Those guys are not going


home. They are not going home, what will they do, because if you say


that Labour is stalled in Scotland at the moment. And voting SNP won't


deliver you independence if suddenly there will be a new referendum. Who


what does that mass of people do, do they form another movement, do they


galvanise, or do they coallase for a long time. A lot of people have done


it, friendship, and it needs some talking so we don't go to the


talk-down ways, but just to go to a structure.


We talked about Alex Salmond being the high water mark of the SNP, is


it the high mark of nationalism? There was a grave mistake here, this


is not nationalism. This is a movement for independence. Do you


think there is a possible movement for independence? I have been


getting tweets and texts today from people I met in the yes Scotland


campaign. One young man who is a Green Party member says the


membership of my heart has doubled in the last 24 hours. Others saying


they have decided to join the SNP. Those are conventional political


parties in a sense. The yes campaign was an unconventional thing, it felt


more like a hobby than a chore. It felt like a carnival coming up, I


met here at the Yestervil. That can't be sustained on a long time.


You can can see what they are talking about in the last 12 hours,


the possibility of a European movement that surround an idea that


being ultimately independent for Scotland. They make it a party aimed


at elections. It is a movement for independence and not nationalism?


Because it is wider and deeper than the Scottish National Party. The


Scottish National Party I would suggest is a minority in this


dynamic, that is one of the reasons why it will happen. The genie is out


of the bottle. I need a very deep warning to Westminster politicians


if they think it is all over, it is not all over. In the same way you


talk about the genie, and Alan talks about the Scottish Demos, will there


be a corresponding English Demos. Something would have to happen the


way that Scotland has been galvanised. We have been hearing in


the course of the evening about the problems and about that happening. I


slightly want to skis diss agree with the SNP -- want to disagree


with the opinions about the SNP. Labour has a real problem facing it,


I believe the SNP, oddly, post-Salmond could rebuild itself as


a powerful political force in Scotland, a non-independent


supporting party, but with policies with which a huge amount of Scots


actually agree. His whole raison d'etre is political independence.


One of the reasons why it did the impossible, and I don't global to


the Scottish National Party. Is because it was seen to be performing


highly competently and in administrative terms and delivering


social and democratic policies to the Scottish people. If that was


going to happen in England, surely there would have to be a rebranding


of what is regarded as nationalism in England. So often it has been


tainted by association. Actually what is wrong with the idea of


building that again. Especially if we are talking about an English


parliament. I don't like nationalism anywhere in the world, wherever I go


there is a foreign correspondent, Alan has covered all the conflicts.


But nationalism seen from the outside is an unattractive thing.


Every nationalism thinks it is unique. That is complete nonsense


what you have just said. This is civic nationalism and not ethnic.


You have to remember that. Because we want to take this and look at


this, is it possible that... . It is a terrible destablising force, I


agree with you in human nature. Is it right the civic nationalism


fuelled in a top-down way by Westminster could be part of the


discourse, it could be a different kind of force, a civic force in


England which is isn't at the moment? Re I didn't see English


nationalism. I don't see where it exists. I see however. I see


northern renalalism as a strong force, that is the direction it is


going to go. Away from London, more devolved power to the north and


North West, a Great Northern swathe. But not English nationalists and


backbenchers. I felt that astonishing that you don't recognise


that the modern form of English nationalism, without an English


party is U Kim. There praisingly before you. Agree UKIP is a growing


force and exactly sort of the things they will reach. The point of this


was really to try to establish a modern rational kind of way of


running a country. Lots of people are embarrassed that a notion with


all the scandals that Westminster has, a place that still styles


itself as the mother of parliament, and using an archaic voting that we


couldn't get a vote to change last place. We will go to the back of the


cue and not have any of the aspirations we have raised recently


and insteppedly. How do you see this, you have followed it from the


beginning, you have seen it mature into whatever happened yesterday.


How does it go on? You can't move around a yes rally for people not to


tell you they are not nationalists, they are not nationalists and don't


vote for the SNP. Scotland is full of those people, they deny they are


nationalist, they say it is not about that. The interesting thing is


the Westminster party leaders came north again and again to fight


narrow nationalism. And the enemy they were identifying, it didn't


mean anything to most of the people. They don't believe they are narrow


nationalists or nationalists of any sort. Thank you very much indeed.


Here on this amazing from Andrew in London and me in Edinburgh, that is


all we have time for, good night. Hello, there are some torrential


thunderstorms rumbling around parts of England in the night and some


into eastern England to start the


Download Subtitles