24/09/2014 Newsnight

An all-party basis. The President who promised to end the war on

terror appears to have embarked on another, President Obama says might

is the only way. There will be no reasoning or negotiation with this

random evil. The only language understood by killers like this is

force. How far will Britain go at America's side, the former

Attorney-General is here. How much money would a "Mansion Tax"

make under Labour, what would it do to the housing market in Ed

Miliband's borough, we have a candid assessment. It would crash, most

certainly. And jailed for watching a men's volley ball watch, a

British-Iranian woman is languishing in a notorious prison. We have an

interview with her brother. Good evening the divisions from the

last Iraq War over a decade ago have barely healed. But tonight Britain

stands on the brink of involvement in another war on terror. On Friday

MPs will debate in parliament air attacks on Iraq. The Prime Minister

says he's responding to a request from the Iraqi Government to support

the war on ISIS. I'm confident we will get it through parliament on an

all-party basis, it is right for the country to be united at this time.

We will be voting on taking part on national action against ISIL in

Iraq. If there was a suggestion of taking action in Syria, that would

be a separate parliamentary vote and debate. I want to be clear, we will

take action in the way I have set out. Allegra Stratton is here. It

feels from that language it is pretty much a done deal. Now about

24 hours it was not a done deal. The Tories had to wait until the Labour

conference was out of the way, and for Ed Miliband to assemble the

Shadow Cabinet and get agreement, they agreed they would support the

strikes. The reason there is such a feeling between the two parties is a

year ago Ed Miliband, David Cameron felt, gave assurances he would

support that action then and there was a sense that Ed Miliband did

reign nations. Until the Conservatives felt they got the

appearances today from Labour, they weren't going to bank on anything.

So are you expecting any rebellion on this, it is limited? It would be

very limited, of course there will be rebellion, there is still

soul-searching, it is not easy for many people on all sides of the

house. Labour MPs who have massive problems in their constituencies.

The questions on Friday people will be asking about is, will it be

lengthy air strikes. People this evening don't have the answer to the

questions. The reason why it will probably be straight forward is it

is incredibly limited. David Cameron wouldn't get action in Syria through

the House, so it is just limited to Iraq. But David Cameron himself

talked about Syria this evening, but also people that I have spoken to

have also said Syria comes round at some point soon, it is not going

away, we have to deal and think about this. Thank you very much.

Meanwhile in New York a President whose foreign policy has been

characterised as hesitant by critics had the UN call to war. He was unam

big arcs he called for a broad coalition to fight ISIS, and to

dismantle what he called the network of death. Today the leaders met with

Iran since the 1979 revolution about Islamic State. This is a new but not

all together convincing alliance introducing it to the world.

How important is this question of legality to the British Government?

Government legal advice is 100% sure that it would be legal for the UK to

start strikes tonight. Without any further endorsement, but then going

to parliament in what he described as a belt and braces option. In

other words, they feel that the letter given by the Iraqi Prime

Minister to the Security Council last night, asking for assistance,

provides the necessary invitation, the authorisation and the

legalisation of force. So quite interesting to see them talking in

those terms. Presumably they say so because they are confident of

getting through the Commons on Friday.

I called Obama's speech a "call to war" earlier today, how big does he

see this coalition getting? It is interesting, you know, even at the

weekend quite a lot of us were a little bit cynical about the

40-nation coalition. Would some of them be promising to look at

passports a bit more carefully. Then of course we saw the five gulf

states taking part, with combat careful over parts of Syria. Now we

hear the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, and possibly the UK are

going to join France among the other NATO countries who are willing to

get involved and do air strikes in Iraq. It is expanding, but it is

what they call a comprehensive strategy, there are other key parts

to it. None more so than the part supposed to be played by Turkey, in

that Security Council session tonight. The President of Turkey was

sitting there and part of it, he voted for steps that would cause him

to have to clampdown on militants going through his country. That is

an absolutely critical aspect of the strategy, put forward by President

Obama which has been the main theme today. President Obama has used this

week as a matter of the moment and laying out his views to world

politics. Key to that was his speech at the council, only the second time

a US President has chaired this body. He wanted to drive home the

seriousness of his new strategy against the so called Islamic State.

Our intelligence officers estimate more than 15 thousand fighters have

travelled there in the last 15 years. Many joining the Al-Qaeda

affiliates and ISIL, which threatens people across Syria and Iraq.

Earlier in the day he address the bigger audience, the General

Assembly and world opinion. He hit back at Russia for its behaviour in

Ukraine, and others for not doing enough to halt the spread of Ebola,

and what he called the cancer of terrorism. I have made it clear that

America will not base our entire foreign policy to reacting to

terrorism. Instead we waged a focus campaign against Al-Qaeda and its

associated forces, taking out their leaders, denying them the safe

havens they rely on. At the same time we have reaffirmed again and

again that the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.

It was a confident eO'vagus, that might have annoyed Russia

It was a confident eO'vagus, that but found plenty of approval from

his powerful audience. How was President Obama's speech

secretary-general? Excellent. I took notes of a strong statement that the

only language understood by killers is the language of force. I fully

agree with the President that is why I think the international community

as a whole has a responsibility to stop the advance of the terrorist

organisation ISIL and eventually defeat it. Has the President

answered domestic crickets who say he has failed to lead in

international politics. That is unfair criticism, and whatever

domestic politics go on here, I can't really comment on those

efforts, but for from our point of view specifically dealing with the

issues we face in NATO, we are rather pleased with him.

The campaign against militants in Syria and Iraq now requires urgent

action from the broader coalition that America has gathered here, 40

or so nation, on the fringes of that, still tight lipped, the UK. As

new the UK, Denmark and others must decide whether or not to strike

immediately. How important is it for them to do so. Other countries have

already done so. Is it necessary for them to do so? If you ask me in my

personal capacity, the answer is yes. I appreciate the United States

has taken the lead on this, I think the United States should be followed

by other NATO allies. It is the urgency of the Middle East crisis

that has defined the President's week here. Whatever other issues he

is juggling, and however much he prejects comparisons with his

predecessors. The President is receiving plain Detective Chief

Inspectors today, as a confident assertion of American leadership.

There is also something rather mournful about it, man who spent

five years trying to redefine America's relationship with the

Middle East and Islam, is now defaulting back to something very

similar to what George W Bush called his war on terror.

If that unending quest for security is a grim necessity, it is hardly

the kind of of idealism that US Presidents seek to inspire the

United Nations. With me now is Lord Malloch-Brown,

who was deputy General Secretary of the United Nationses in 2006, and

Conservative MP and chair of the defence elect committee Rory

Stewart. Welcome to you both. Rory Stewart, I'm wondering if you heard

a confident assertion of American leadership, from Obama's speech? It

is clear he wants to act. But there is still a lot of questions which he

himself poses again and again, which is, what next? He said two weeks ago

he didn't have a strategy, he now says he does. If you look carefully

at it, it doesn't yet go much beyond air strikes. The big question

remains the political question, how do you get the other regional people

involved, how do you deal with Islamic State and the Sunni

population. He has got the UK and regional powers, you would expect

the UK to follow suit presumably and agree to strikes? I think that is

likely, yes. If you were hearing the statements from Ed Miliband, and the

fact that what the Prime Minister is asking for is limited. He's not

asking for strikes in Syria. I would have thought the likelihood is

parliament will vote on Friday for strikes. The question of the

regional players is more complicated. You are absolutely

right, the strikes have taken place, but the funding is very important.

Downs like Turkey are very important. They haven't yet

participated. That is the biggest player on the Syrian Iraqi border,

we have to watch that awfully. On a UN level now, what is the process,

does this go round in circles looking for resolution like last

time? No, because actually a request by a country for support for its own

security, that's it. You actually don't need a Security Council

resolution, it is nice to have, but it is not necessary. Frankly nor is

it necessary for limited strikes on Syria if those strikes are aimed at

those hostile elements that are trying to undo the Iraq Government.

I mean that again falls under the umbrella of responding to requests

from the Iraqi Government to defend its security. Are we wrong to

isolate the one from the other? I think we are, the risk of striking

into Syria is we again, like with Libya or like with Iraq, in 200 #,

that a limited purpose gets dragged into a bigger regime change purpose,

and that would be wrong. But in terms of doing the job now, the

surgical strikes against ISIS in order to reduce and contain its

military effectiveness, I think we're sort of tying, unnecessarily

tying our hands behind our back. What about the whole question of the

UN Security Council, China and Russia, traditionally opposing what

the western powers do. That is not going to happen here, it is not even

going to go to council? As I say, I think like what will likely happen

is it will come to the council, because the Iraqis you know in part

address their plea to the council. My suspicion is it won't come to a

vote, because it will be talked out and extensively talked out, which

will allow the Russians and Chinese say it has been to the council, and

they have not been bypassed where it will avoid a situation where the

Russians feel obliged to veto. As I say, it is completely different to

Syria last year. That was attacks on a Government, which was still,

however ouch you dislike it the recognised Government of the

country. This is a response to a request by a Government to help

defend its territory. Do you think the defeat of ISIS is possible? It

is going to be very, very difficult. If everybody says the two things you

need are the regional players on side and the local population

against them, there is not much sign of that yet moving. And remember

there are going to be players who will disrupt this. It is not clear

really where in the end Iran, Russia, Syrian leadership will come

down. They will be worried, they can see Saudi, and others striking, you

will wonder where they will turn next. I don't think anybody who

pretends they can get rid of the Islamic State, as opposed to contain

them. We can get rid of their equipment, but get them out of

places like Raqqa, and Mosul, very difficult. It is easy to look back

at the places it could be involved, when you look at the political

problems President Obama face, was he wrong to pull out of the surge

when he came to power, does that seem fundamental to the issues now?

He made the right decision, it was difficult but the right decision. In

the end what we learned about the surge is it was not sustainable. It

was military move, how much they talked about politics, it was

military. And yet it is a mess now? It was inevitably going to be a

mess, unless you could sort out the politics in Baghdad, it didn't

matter you had #130E,000 troops on the ground and spending $100 million

a year, it was only going to last two or three years. The diplomacy

element between the US and the UK, clearly America will be happy to

have us on board as far as that goes tonight. But we are a minor player

aren't we? We have already put caveats on, how useful are we? There

may be some intelligence assets, Cyprus bases, other things which are

of a little bit more use than is immediately visible. But really the

utility of this is solidarity with the United States. Solidarity with

the international community and in response to Iraq's requests. The

marginal military value is limited. I think the risk is, even when the

UK went in as an alleged equal partner in 2003 in Iraq, we actually

quickly found that we were a junior partner, and the strategy was

determined in Washington. More so this time. And the real core risk

here is that we get dragged into a long conflict. The surge didn't end

too soon to pick up on what Rory was saying, you know, what it

demonstrated instead was that there aren't military solutions in this

region, and we shouldn't fall back into the trap of believing there

are. We have learned tonight that amongst

those killed in the strikes, last night were British-born Jihadis,

Secunder Kermani has more. Tell us what you know? We heard about a

19-year-old from Brighton who travelled to Syria in February. We

believe he was killed in a US air strike outside the city of Aleppo on

Monday evening. We also believe that he was part of the Al-Qaeda

affiliated group. His mother spoke to the BBC earlier tonight and she

said she had no idea how he became radicalised. I'm just saying whoever

was responsible brain-washing my son, to take this kind of measure,

to go there, hall will judge between me and then on the day of judgment.

I have a source and he told me that was not the only British citizen to

die in the air strikes. He told me three other men, all of Bengali

heritage, all from London were also killed alongside Syrian and Dutch

fighters. America says it was targeting in the air strikes a group

plotting attacks on western interests. My source told me these

men had travelled to fight against the regime of Assad, which is

accused of widespread atrocities of the Syrian population. The group

they were part of, it is part of Al-Qaeda, it is a Jihadist

organisation, but it is also a lot less extreme than Islamic State,

ISIS, in some places in Syria it has been fighting against ISIS. I spoke

to a member of the moderate Syrian opposition outside Aleppo, a group

pro-democracy, anti-Assad and anti-ISIS. He fears that the US

strikes against this Al-Qaeda group will push them into a Jihadist

alliance with ISIS, that would make the lives of him and others in the

democratic opposition more difficult.

A few months ago there was let's say troubles or problems between these

two sections of Al-Qaeda. They will join each other to fight against

let's say the people supporting the Allies. A French hostage was killed

by a group also linked to ISIL what do we know about that today? A 55

-year-old French man hiking in Algeria, kidnapped over the weekend

by a Jihadist group that declared its support for ISIS. They

threatened to kill this man, Herve Gourdel, if France continued its

support for America and other western air strikes against ISIS in

Syria. But today they released a video of his beheading, the French

President, Francois Hollande, said it was a cruel and cowardly act but

felt that France would not give into blackmail like this. Thank you very

much indeed. Let's take all the threads that we have heard this

evening so far and cross to York once more, we can speak to Marie

Harf of the US State Department, who speaks from there. Thank you very

much for joining us, we appreciate your time. Your response to

Britain's position tonight, can you fight ISIS in Iraq and not in Syria?

A few points we know ISIL has grown strong in Iraq, that is why the

United States has taken direct military action against them there.

A key part of the strategy is pushing them back from the territory

they have already taken in Iraq. We obviously know there is a key point

of the tragedy that involves Syria, that is why we have taken action in

Syria. Each country will make their own decisions on being part of the

coalition, not all of that is military, a lot of it will be

nonmilitary. Things we need other people to do. It seems extraordinary

that in 2009 Obama came with the new chapter in US international

relations and the language tonight is pretty much a call of war. Is

there acceptance now that the only way to fight terror is militarily. ?

I think you have seen the President, this President, President Obama,

throughout his whole entire administration take the threat to

terrorists when they threaten the United States. If you look at

Al-Qaeda in packs stand and Afghans -- Pakistan, and Afghanistan. He has

never hesitate today take action. This is the next phase in the war

against the Jihadists who are trying to kill Americans and other people

in the region. This was the man who defied the words of John McCain,

when he was running for President, stopped the surge, pulled the

soldiers out, at a time when they could have stopped the mess that we

are in now, isn't that the legacy? Not at all. The war we are going to

be undertaking against ISIL looks nothing like the war that the

previous administration went to in Iraq. These are wholly different

military operations. What we are undertaking is targeted counter

terrorism operations against a group. I would agree with your

previous guest that nothing militarily we could have done would

have prevented this rise of ISIL, there was a political vacuum in Iraq

that led to sectarianism and the breakdown we saw in the Iraqi

security forces. That is what we are trying to come back from right now

and helping the Iraqis. It is interesting when you talk about

targeted military operations. I don't know if you heard our

correspondent just then, who said, look, the US has targetedies

circumstance but it issing will -- targeted ISIS, but also groups like

other groups fighting ISIS. You have to be watchful if you are pushing

two groups closer together to create a greater ISIS force? That is a

simplistic reading of the situation. When we decide who to go for in

Iraq, whatever group, they have to present a threat to the United

States or our partners. It has to meet that criteria. So we believe

these all presented threats to us or Iraq, that is why we took the

action, that is the standard we use going forward. Realistically, and we

know that President Obama has said this is just the beginning, this

will amount to boots on the ground in some form, won't it? Not American

boots on the ground in combat roles, we have been very clear about that.

The boots on the ground we need are the Iraqi security force, the

Kurdish forces, to get back on their feet, that is what we are helping

them do, and also the Syrian opposition, that we are supporting,

through a train and equip programme to help a moderate opposition force

grow there. To be clear there will be no American boots in a role in

combat, the President has been very clear about that.

The inquiry e into the last Iraq War wasn't been finished, Lord Goldsmith

was accused of changing his advice on the legality of military action

days before the invasion. What would Dominic Grieve make of the same

question this time round, the Attorney General. It is more

straight forward this time round? Very much so in so far as the

request of the Iraqi Government for azest tense. They are en--

assistance. They are entitled to ask for assistance. There is internal

armed conflict in parts of northern Iraq. In addition there seems to be

some evidence that some of the attacks are spilling over the border

to Syria, they are entitled to invoke the right to self-defence. As

long as the Prime Minister considers that the United Kingdom can help in

that, and that we can use reasonable, necessary and

proportionate means to stop unlawful activity taking place. So long as he

also pays close attention to ensuring that the law of war is

observed. International humanitarian law which is a challenge when you

deal with partners who don't always accept proper human rights

standards. Then the intervention by ourselves or anybody else in support

of the Iraqi Government will undoubtedly be lawful. Why then

would he rule out Syria from what you have just said? I think Syria is

more complicated. There are grounds on which we could OK properly

intervene in Syria to begin with, there is no doubt that the Iraqi

Government, if they are being attacked from across the Syrian

border by IS are entitled to go across into Syria in order to stop

those attacks. Just to make that clear, if we don't follow up action

in Syria, what we're essentially doing is an operation to get ISIS

out of Iraq and nothing more? There is no doubt that getting ISIS out of

Iraq is one legal framework. But militarily very ineffective? Quite

possibly. We know from what the United States is doing they are

taking military action in Syria as well. I think it is right that

military action in Syria comes under a rather different legal framework.

But that is not to say it would be improper, but the Prime Minister

would need to be satisfied that different criteria were met before

doing it. And there is the problem about the Syrian Government itself.

The Prime Minister has made it clear, for very good reasons that he

doesn't wish to engage with the Syrian Government, because its own

reputation in terms of human rights violations is so appalling. But they

are de facto the Government of Syria, although they the writ

doesn't run in the areas where the military operation also likely to

take place. It is about the intervening and the consequences in

creating a vacuum, and whether at that stage it wouldn't be better to

involve the United Nations and act on a UN resolution. When you talk

about criteria you are saying you wouldn't do Syria without through

the whole chapter and verse on the UN resolution? I'm not saying you

have to have one to go in. If you didn't consider you could get a

suitable UN resolution in Syria, you could take action under the doctrine

of humanitarian necessity, if it was preventing Kurdish villages being

wiped out or other minorities, genocide being committed against

them. As I say the Iraqi Government is entitled to take military action

across the border if the attacks are coming KR from across the border.

There is no doubt that the Iraqis' allies can act in concert with them

for that purpose. If America is already in Syria what does that say

about the legality, are they doing something illegal that we are not

following, or is it OK for them but not for us? The United States, I

think, has always approached these matters in a slightly different way

from the way we do ourselves. Just listening to the lady from the state

department a moment ago. She made quite clear that under the doctrine

that the United States has had, ever since the 9/11, it will pursue

Al-Qaeda and its affiliates anywhere in the world. Including against the,

if a Government won't co-operate with them, it will do it whether or

not that Government wants it. Some of the interventions in Syria are

almost certainly taking place under that heading. Others may be taking

place under a different heading, but the United States has never

clarified its view as to whether the doctrine of humanitarian necessity

is one it embraces. It undoubtedly does it in reality, but it has never

actually explained it in legal terms. Is your gut feeling from a

moral interventionist perspective that David Cameron would want to go

into Syria and we probably will? I don't think I can answer it. The

Prime Minister has a two-fold issue tomorrow, firstly he has to persuade

parliament, not so much about the morality, I think most

parliamentarians looking at what is going on must conclude it is

difficult to think of anything much worse than IS. That's the

difference, isn't it, between this and last year where there w anxiety

that destroying President Assad would bring something worse. Do you

think we could go into Syria? There is a proper basis for the United

Kingdom to go into Syria, but I want to emphasise that base has to be

established. I don't have the intelligence. Quite apart from

anything else, it would be the law officers who would have to consider

that, and I wouldn't in any way prejudge that issue. There are

circumstances which in my view it would be proper to intervene in

Syria. Thank you very much indeed. Now, much has been made of the stuff

that Ed Miliband left out of yesterday's speech. Perhaps

obscuring the stuff that he put in. One of the bolder or riskier ones

were the "Mansion Tax". What would the cash raised buy for the NHS. We

have been crunching the numbers. This is probably what you think of

when you hear the word "mansion", but in London property have risen so

much in the past years, that homes like this will be caught in the ?2

million limit. This is how it rolled in Camden, near Ed Miliband's old

home. And the former Prime Minister. But he couldn't afford to live here

now. The basement and this bit is going for ?1. 5 million. The levy

would raise ?1. 2 billion, that is ?11,000 for each home worth more

than ?2 million. The proposed tax would be progressive, four bands

being charged in increasing amounts. Around 80% of the homes affected

would be in London. In fact, just three borough, Kensington and

Chelsea, Westminster and Camden would pay around two thirds of the

total bill. Although even in London, ?2 million properties are hardly the

norm. The same architect that designed these did several around

North London only worth up to ?500,000. It is just by Vertonghen

it -- virtue of the area. 30% of the properties affected by the "Mansion

Tax" are detatched houses, the rest are semi-detatched, terraces and

flats. The tricky part of the tax is valuing homes. Newsnight understands

that Labour are considering using the method applied to the called

annual tax on enveloped properties, introduced by the Chancellor. Since

2013, if you have owned a property worth more than ?2 million through a

company, then every year you had to get that property valued and submit

that valuation to the Government. They then present you with a tax

bill. If you submit a number that turns out to be wrong and the

Government challenge you. You don't just have to pay the tax bill but a

substantial penalty. It is this system that Labour are looking to

roll out to all properties worth more than ?2 million. At the moment

only 1,000 properties a year are subject to this valuation procedure,

expanding that to over 100,000 might be tricky. Aside from surveyor, the

big beneficiary of the policy is supposed to be the NHS. Labour have

pledged to set aside ?2. 5 billion for an NHS Time to Care fund, this

is compared to an NHS budget of ?100 billion. They say it would pay for

3,000 midwives, 5,000 care workers, 8,000 GPs and 20,000 nurses. In our

view you need more than ?2. 5 billion. We think something between

?4-?5 billion extra a year over the next ten years would be sufficient

to sustain the NHS in good standards of patient care and to support the

investment we desperately need in transforming how care is delivered.

More care closer to home. More emphasis on prevention, less

reliance on hospitals, that's what we all want to see.

Even if Labour have found way to make the "Mansion Tax" work. Health

economists doubt that it alone would be enough to cover the NHS needs.

The Sturgeon is a different creature to the salmon, lower profile, not

known for its leaping displace, but the SNP's deputy leader suggested if

she was successfully elected for the party's new leader, the struggle for

independence would condition. Nicola Sturgeon declared her candidacy for

the post, and said the independence question could be re-opened in as

little as five years, if London failed to deliver on promises to

Scotland. She gave this interview. If Alex Salmond symbolised the

nationalists before September 18th, then Nicola Sturgeon is the face of

the future. Barring an unforeseen challenge, she will certainly be the

first female First Minister of Scotland, and today although she

praised her predecessor, she made it clear she is her own woman. We would

not have come so far as a nation without Alex's vision, tenacity and

statesmanship, but the challenges and opportunities of tomorrow

require a different approach. They will demand the ability not just to

argue case with determination and conviction, but also to reach out,

to work with others and seek common cause on the issues that unite us.

Everything has changed so quickly in a country which has deliberated and

debated the referendum for nigh on two years. It was just six days ago

that Scotland was in a frenzy of excitement on referendum day. It was

the broadest and deepest political engagment I have ever known in

Scotland, and the discourse was passionate and in the main

harmonious, even though families and friends were often split between yes

and no. The turnout, 84. 5% was a testament to people's involvement in

democracy. The world was watching. There is a sense that since the vote

Scotland has changed, for some teenagers who voted for

independence, there is a new campaign, the generation yes

movement. The ranks of the SNP have swelled to make the third largest

party in the UK. And for the unionist, devolution is on the move.

And as Alex Salmond said, the coalition's feet will be held to the

fire to cement new powers for Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon, a former lawyer and formidable brain has said she will

co-operate with the Swift Commission on devolution. You think you might

be keen to vote? Her belief in independence is unshakeable and goes

back to her membership of the party at the age of 16, when I was

politicised by the unemployment and industrial decline in her native

Ayrshire in the Thatcher years. It is not just in the Scottish

Parliament Nicola Sturgeon wants to pursue greater Home Rule, she wants

to up the engagment with parliament. At the moment there are six SNP, MPs

they don't vote on legislation, she's determined to build on the

Scottish vote and increase the number of MPs. Nicola Sturgeon says

Gordon Brown, speaking with the authority of the Conservatives, the

Liberal Democrats and Labour, made a clear and unmistakable promise. The

package to be delivered by January next year is to be Home Rule and

something near to federalism. The question is, what will the new First

Minister of Scotland do if they fail to deliver on that promise. Nicola

Sturgeon spoke to Kirsty in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.

Barring a thunder bolt, you will be First Minister of Scotlands? Never

discount the possibility of a thunder bolt! It is fair to say on

the night you thought you won the vote? I campaigned all day in

Glasgow and we did in Glasgow, I believed we were going to win. I

think it is fair to say those of us involved in the yes campaign thought

for the last few days of the campaign we were on course to win.

We did very well. Were you preparing for negotiations? We had been

preparing in the Scottish Government for some time to make sure that we

were as prepared as possible if there was a yes vote. I felt huge

disappointment on the night. Not disappointment just for myself, but

disappointment for the 1. 6 million people across Scotland who voted

yes. It is interesting, right up to the first poll that came out after

the vote close you thought you had won? I thought we had won,

absolutely. You said this morning you would take a different approach

to Alex Salmond, what does that actually mean? What that means is

recognising that the different time we have moved into now in Scotland

demands a different approach. So, yes, I will argue my corner, I will

argue it passionately, I will argue it with determination like Alex

would have done, but I will try to try to reach out across the party

divide and those who are now politically engaged and not in

political parties and try to focus on not just what divides us, there

is a real focus in Scotland on the yes and no and what we disagree,

that is understandable. Is that embargo Alex Salmond was quite

pugnacious? He was a great man and great friend, I won't sit here and

pick holes in his character. Different times demand different

skills. I want to try to have an inclusive style of leadership. Do

you accept that the majority of people in Scotland, as of now don't

want independence? We didn't win the referendum. Do you think as Alex

Salmond seems to think, that this issue is over for a generation?

Circumstances and the mood of the people of Scotland will term if and

when there is another referendum. I don't think any politician, even if

they wanted to, can set a limit on the ambition of the Scottish people.

I'm not planning another referendum right now. We have just had one. But

circumstances will dictate what happens in the future. So you are

not planning a referendum soon, but do you rule it out for example in

the next five years? I won't rule it out or in. The fundamental point I'm

making here is that it is not in the gift of politicians to say to the

Scottish people you will not for five or ten years, no matter the

circumstances, get the chance to say that you want to make a different

decision. You have said that what Gordon Brown promised on behalf of

Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives was Home Rule towards

federalism. What do you actually mean by that? It is now for us all

to define what that means, I'm very clear what I mean. I think we need

powers in Scotland that allow us, as a parliament, to create jobs to grow

our economy, to make sure that we can tackle better the inequality

that scars our nation. I met with Lord Smith yesterday who will lead

this process, I have indicate today him that we will be active

participants in this process for change. What are you actually going

to ask for? We will be looking for the maximum powers over tax, we will

be looking for substantial powers over welfare. We will be look for

powers that give the parliament greater fiscal responsibility and

accountability. We will look for powers that enable the Scottish

Parliament on issues that are devolved to us to speak up in Europe

on these issues. Do you think, as one of your MSPs has been blogging

that you should go into the general election on a devo max ticket. By

that I mean everything devolved bar foreign affairs, defence and

macro-economics? We will be campaigning from now until the

general election to make sure that the substance and the rhetoric of

what is delivered matches what was promised. We did have language used

during the final stages of the referendum campaign, of devo max, of

near federalism, Home Rule. That has to be delivered. This scenario was

talked about a lot during the referendum campaign, that there is

an in coming Conservative Government committed to a referendum on Europe.

In the course of that referendum, England votes to leave and Scotland

votes to stay. Do you think that would be seen as a UK-wide single

return, it is a were, or do you think that there would be grounds

then for going after a referendum for independence? That is one of the

circumstances that would make many people in Scotland think it was time

to think again. In your opinion do you think people in Scotland would

want to leave Europe? No. I don't think people in Scotland would want

to leave Europe. SNP MPs don't vote on English legislation should Labour

MPs be doing the same? If I was English I would see the great

argument for the fact that on English issues Scottish MPs don't

vote. What I don't think think is acceptable, given the promises made

is what David Cameron suggested in the early hours of Friday morning is

that issue should run in tandem to deliver the promise made to

Scotland. The promise made was made unconditionally. Do you believe you

will be the First Minister of an independent Scotland one day? I

would love to think so, but that is in the hand of the Scottish people.

I will focus for the meantime on my campaign to be the First Minister of

the devolved Government, I think that is probably what I should focus

on at the moment. Thank you very much much. Where It is nearly three

months since a British Iranian woman was thrown into jail in Tehran. Her

crime, watching a men's volley ball match. Ghoncheh Ghavami is in a

notorious prison. She believed the rule over women spectators had been

overturned. Her plea fell on deaf ears. We caught up with her brother

Iman. Three months ago this London law

graduate had a great deal to look forward to. But for the last 87 days

she has been held in Tehran's notorious prison. Nearly half of

that in solitary confinement. Dwarf Ghoncheh Ghavami was apparently

taunted by prison officers who said she wouldn't get out alive. Her

crime, watching volley ball. Her family are desperate. She's a very

energetic, passionate 25-year-old woman. Her plan was to visit family

and do some volunteering with street kids. She was actually working

volunteering with street kids and teaching them how to read and write,

I think that was the highlight of her stay at that point in Tehran.

That was the joy of being half British, half Iranian. She flitted

between her home in west London and her parents' place in Iran. All that

changed on June 20th. With thousands of others, she went to watch the

national theme play at the stadium. -- national team play at the

stadium. Iman says his sister thought a ban on women watching

men's volley ball was lifted, she was wrong. She was arrested and

questioned for four hours. Days later when she returned to a police

station to collect her things, she was arrested again and thrown in

jail. The authorities took my dad and her home and they confiscated

her books, her phone, iPad, two or three laptops and they took and we

didn't hear from her for the next 11 days. After 11 days she made a phone

call and we found out that she was being kept at the prison. My parents

were devastated. My mum she is restless all the time, my dad, I

mean, he has aged like ten years in the past three months. This is

Ghoncheh Ghavami in June last year on an Iranian election day, her

finger inked like that of the man she wanted to become President,

Hasan Rouhani. Now her family hope they can end her nightmare. Do you

think the British diplomats might hesitate because of the country's

role in the region? My his Sister's case has nothing to do with

politics, it is more of a human story, all we want is to bring her

back home. So you might think it ideal that Rouhani and David Cameron

should meet today. Although the Prime Minister expressed concern

about the case, her family fear the British won't want to be too

critical. The west is wooing Iran right now, they have a common enemy,

so called Islamic State. I think they want to arrest and keep her in

prison for 85 days. And 41 days in solitary confinement, purely for

attending a match. This week, finally, she was charged with

propaganda against the state. Her brother travelled to New York in the

hope of meeting President Rouhani, thus far he has been illusive. Let

me just take you through the papers before we go. The Times has

Cameron's call to arms for bar on barbarians.

That's it, as you saw the news today, the Dowager Duchess of

Devonshire, the last surviving Mitford sister has died. She gave

one of her last interviews to Newsnight four years ago. We leave

you with a brief exchange. You must have been the only woman in

the world who danced with JFK as a young man, and within months took

tea with Hitler? Isn't it extraordinary for that to have

happened to you? Isn't it strange, but that is the sort of thing that

did happen.