19/09/2014 Newsnight

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