24/09/2014 Newsnight


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles