27/06/2017 Newsnight

It seemed unstoppable once but the brakes are being applied.

The Scottish Government will reset the plan.

We will not seek an independence referendum immediately.

The SNP has put a stop for now, to its plan for a second

Having enjoyed momentum in their favour for years,

they've had to make a tactical retreat, with the polls showing

the Scottish people unconvinced of the case for independence.

We will ask the SNP leader in Westminster what went wrong and what

has changed. Also tonight, Cambridge Analytica -

compare and contrast We are going to be running

large-scale research that the nation really understand,

why people are interested in staying We've had absolutely no involvement

in the Leave campaign, we didn't do any paid

or unpaid work. Some believe the firm's

psychological techniques were the secret weapon that swung

the EU referendum, And we hear from the man who four

years ago was in charge There is a lot of debate and discord

over Brexit. That alone, let alone the other things we have been

talking about, means this country is in a pretty sorry state, at a

critical point in its history. Plans for a second Scottish

referendum on independence First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has

categorically NOT dropped the idea of another vote,

but said today that no legislation will be brought forward until autumn

next year at the earliest. Given the pace at which these things

proceed, that means no vote would happen until 2020

and by then it would likely be delayed until after the next

Scottish elections in 2021. The reset amounts to a setback

for the ambitions of the SNP, but it's arguably also a retreat

for the forces of change and disruption that have been

dominating politics for so long. It was Scotland that led the world

into a new era of voter restlessness. A nationalist surge

that saw SNP majority rule in Scotland and which paved the way for

that independence referendum. Scotland has voted no in this

referendum on independence. It was a defeat for independence but it came

closer than anyone anticipated when it all started. Something had

stirred and quickly turned into a boat uprising against anything that

smacked of politics as usual. In 2015, the SNP broke all records, one

half the vote in Scotland and 5659 Westminster seats. That turned out

to be the high water mark. You have not seen the last of my bonnets and

me. This time around they got 35 seats. A great result by normal

standards but it was a huge drop. Volatile voter behaviour had now

come back to hit the SNP. Nationalism are less winning

proposition. That reality was infused into the words of Nicola

Sturgeon today. Many of us already believe that independence is the

right and the best answer to the many complex challenges we face as a

country and also the best way to seize and fully realise our many

opportunities. We must persuade the majority in Scotland of that was

that we have not done that yet but I have no doubt that we can. Why did

the momentum for radical change in Scotland slow? Here are four

theories. One voter fatigue. After Indyref one and the Brexit vote, the

Scottish people cannot face another decision. The SNP are outside is no

more. Having once been the subversives, they then became the

establishment. Ruth Davidson of the Scottish Conservatives became the

outsider. The price of oil has fallen and Brexit makes the border

issue less simple. A fourth theory. Some change in mood across Europe.

It looked as though populism could disrupt all before it but the

success of Emanuel Macron is only one example of it being held back.

Maybe populism's ultimate triumph gave it a bad name. Brexit proceeds

now for the whole of the UK. It has the power to disrupt and surprise.

So the ground constitutional question has not gone away. For the

moment at least, it is one great up evil at the time.

Current polling has support for independence at about 40%

by the way, and a recent Daily Record poll found that 60%

wanted Ms Sturgeon to drop her plan for another referendum.

Ian Blackford is the SNP's new leader in the House of Commons.

Welcome. Thank you for joining us. Did the opinion polls play a part in

Nicola Sturgeon's decision? We have reset the timing on when an

independence referendum may take place. If we look at where we are,

the SNP has won the last three Scottish elections. We have won the

last 135 seats out of 39. We are still remarkably popular party and

an remarkably popular government in Edinburgh. We need to reflect the

circumstances throughout the United Kingdom. Now we have a minority

government I would argue there is no longer a hard wrecks it. What we

need to push for is representing Scotland's interests. You have

overreached yourself. You thought this was your moment for a second

go. Actually, the polls, if anything, have drifted away from

independence. What happened last year if we went with the manifesto

seeking support of the Scottish people. If there were to be a

material change in circumstances, we wanted the option of a referendum.

You are now breaking your own manifesto. Circumstances have

changed. Our priority is to protect Scotland's interests. It means

remaining in the customs union. There will be an opportunity to push

for that. That is the change in circumstances. You can now fight for

the soft Brexit that you want. You could not have done that before the

general election. The UK Government did not want to compromise with us.

There was a compromised document. We recognise the UK voted to come out

of Europe. We'll Sue sought recognition of our position. We have

not had a meeting of the joint ministerial committee since

February. So, to summarise, it was nothing to do with the polls showing

a decline in support for independence. Other polls show

higher than that. There were some showing it at 49. We will always

listen to the people of Scotland. We will understand we did less well

than we did in 2015. We want to demonstrate to the people of

Scotland we are worthy of their trust. Our priority is to protect

the interests of the people of Scotland. Let's talk about that.

That is your case. A referendum should be seen as an insurance

policy in Scotland should be dragged out of the single market against its

will. If you hate the Brexit that Theresa May is taking us towards, do

you have the power to shout from the sidelines loudly and prominently to

delay or obstruct? I think what people want is to see politicians

working together. We are offering to the Government to get around a table

to see we can represent the interests of those averse in

Scotland and Northern Ireland who seek to have access to single

market. If Theresa May does not play it like you want it, it you have the

power to delay or obstruct the Brexit that she wants, like not

voting for the Great Repeal Bill. We will have opportunities to influence

the debate. There will also be a legislative consent motion has to be

presented to the Scottish parliament. We are not talking about

threatening anyone. In your back pocket it sounds like you do not

have the power to stop it. We are going to have a legislative consent

motion. What is your understanding if you refuse to consent? If we are

in a position where we are dragged out of the single market then we

need to have the option of giving the referendum right to the people

of Scotland. That is the ultimate power we have. Will there be a

second referendum before 2021 if Britain adopts a softer Brexit than

Theresa May has been talking about? If the position of Scotland and the

single market can be protected... If it cannot be protected, there will

definitely be a referendum? In those circumstances, it is only right...

You will definitely require one? At the end of the Brexit process, every

member state of the EU will have a vote. It is only right and proper

that people of Scotland are offered that opportunity as well. It is

about making sure we have a parachute and can protect ourselves

against the hard Brexit. There will be a referendum. You will request a

referendum annual do it before 2021. We will need to move as quickly as

possible. Let's talk about the DUP deal. Scotland has been

short-changed by money being sent to Northern Ireland. It is not a good

deal for the union and the United Kingdom. What you have is the

Conservative government buying votes from the DUP with a ?1 billion

bribe. How are you being short-changed? The Secretary of

State for Scotland made it clear there have to be consequential is

from the DUP deal. That should happen across the United Kingdom. If

we were treated on an crippling basis, that would be an additional

investment in Scottish public services and infrastructure of 2.9

billion. That is a bit unfair on English taxpayers. It probably means

another 30 billion for English taxpayers, doesn't it? They would

not be treated on an equal basis if that were the case, would they? It

is taking cash out of the pockets of the porous. We argue for an

investment of 118 billion over the course of the parliament. Why would

you want to leave? Your goal is to leave the United Kingdom. We want to

be a progressive force in Parliament. We argued for investment

across the United Kingdom. We're not playing one part of the United

against another. Thank you. You might never have heard

of the company Cambridge Analytica but for many of those lamenting

the result of last year's Brexit vote it has become

a bit of a bogeyman. Some believe the firm's

psychological techniques were the secret weapon that

swung the referendum. The idea that voters can be

manipulated is not new, remember it was the Sun wot won it

in the 1992 election. These claims are always aided

by the perception that right wing billionaires are pulling strings

behind the scenes. So what is the truth

of Cambridge Analytica, Gabriel Gatehouse has

been investigating. Every political campaign wants

to get inside your head. The more they know about you,

the more they can influence you. I think people understand

that data is power. As we play out our lives online,

we're making things easy for them. It is possible to target messages

at particular individuals, who will be unaware of the fact

you've been profiling them. Are there people out there who know

you better than you know yourself? It's using psychological

techniques to change people's Was Britain's EU referendum

hijacked by the American alt-right, using a technique

known as psychographics. They said, "Here's this

company, can it help you?" This is the charge levelled

at an obscure data analytics firm They now deny they ever worked

on the Leave campaign So, is psychographics

a menace or a myth? This is a complicated story

involving politicians, financiers, and companies,

on both sides of the Atlantic. It's also a story in

which the main protagonists keep It raises troubling

questions about whether, in the age of big data,

our democracy is open Cambridge Analytica is a data

analytics company with offices There are numerous, similar firms,

whose services are retained by political parties

during elections around the world. But, Cambridge Analytica's

approach is different, according to its Eton-educated CEO,

Alexander Nix. Psychographics, that is an

understanding of your personality, because it is personality that

drives behaviour and behaviour that Our story begins in 2015 at a press

conference for Leave.EU, one of the two main groups

campaigning for Britain's exit from One of the people on the platform

is from Cambridge Analytica. We're going to be running

large-scale research throughout the nation to really understand why

people are interested in staying And the answers to that

will help inform our policy and our communications,

to make sure we turn out more first-time voters,

more unregistered voters, more apathetic voters

than ever before. In February last year, Alexander Nix

gave a progress update. He wrote in an article

that Cambridge Analytica "already helped supercharge Leave.

EU's social media campaign. And that the campaign's Facebook

page was growing in support to the tune of about

3000 people every day." Leave.EU was the Ukip-led

campaign for Brexit, fronted by Aaron Banks and Nigel

Farage. Cambridge Analytica is financially

backed by Robert Mercer, an American computer scientist

turned hedge fund billionaire. He also backed the alt-right

news site, Breitbart, founded by Steve Bannon,

who was also on the board of Cambridge Analytica,

until he became Donald Trump's Robert Mercer was a major

contributor to Donald Trump's presidential campaign,

which Cambridge Analytica It was through this network

of mutual acquaintances that Cambridge Analytica

and the Leave campaign. At least that's how a spokesman

for Leave.EU told it to a reporter I went and had a cofee

with Andy Wigmore of Leave.EU and he said it was just

because Nigel is a good friend of the Mercers -

Robert Mercer - and of course knows Steve Bannon a long time,

and they were happy to help. Political campaigning

is strictly regulated. Whatever money you spend

needs to be registered. Leave.EU's spending returns make no

mention of Cambridge Analytica. When Leave.EU were first

challenged about this, they said, "Oh, well,

they did some work for us but they were just helping out

and they didn't get paid." But that would be problematic, too,

because donations in kind have to be registered as well and foreign

donations are not allowed at all. In April, the Electoral

Commission launched an investigation into Leave.

EU's spending, including potentially impermissible donations,

saying it had reasonable grounds to investigate whether

the law had been broken. But now, in his first on-camera

interview addressing this interview, Cambridge Analytica's CEO

claims his company never in fact did any work on Brexit for

any of the campaigns. I'd like to think we've been pretty

clear about this and consistantly clear over the last year

or so that we had absolutely no involvement in the Leave campaign -

we did not do any paid Well, actually, that was

really just an example We had a slightly overzealous PR

adviser, who released You also had a colleague at

the launch of Leave.EU's campaign. You were still saying

you weren't working for them, We were exploring the possibility

of working with them, as we were with actually other

parties at that time. So, what does

Cambridge Analytica do? Essentially, it's

all about targeting. It uses data to help politicians get

the right Facebook ad, for example, Every political campaign uses

these sorts of companies but Cambridge Analytica claims

to have something extra, a secret source, and that's

psychographics come in. Cambridge Analytica is a behavioural

science and data analytics company that tries to synthesise both

psychology and big data and predictive analytics

to understand audiences, both in the political space

and the commercial and brand space, as well as the Government space,

such that it can improve Cambridge Analytica was formed in

2013 and is affiliated with a group SCL began developing a psychological

component to marketing and messaging Their work isn't

confined to elections. SEL's website says their services

have been used by the US This has led some to accuse

Cambridge Analytica of using techniques known as psyops,

or psychological operations. This has come out of

a background of doing 30 years of doing psychological

operations all round the world. When people talk about winning

hearts and minds in Afghanistan, It's using psychological

techniques to change people's Cambridge Analytica is sensitive

to the charge that they're using military grade psyops

on elections in Western democracies. We train militaries all over

the world in psyops and our military division

is very separate from our In fact, so much so it's

a different company, it's in a different building,

it has a firewall between it, it's governed by a different board,

it has its own security clearances. The only commonality between the two

might be some key personnel Cambridge Analytica went on to work

for the Trump campaign. At the time, they appeared

to suggest they were using psychographics but they later

clarified that they hadn't. Perhaps that's because when they did

use psychographics on an earlier campaign, that of Senator Ted Cruz

and his bid for the Republican nomination, it didn't really

seem to work. What the company itself

had promised to deliver And so we were paying a premium

for something that we thought was a strategic advantage and turned

out to have no I'd like to believe that the theory

works and that it could be put to good use but, in the end,

it was just bullshit. Cambridge Analytica says

psychographics is a legitimate and effective component

of its methodology. Scientists have, for years,

been working on models that combined personal data with psychological

tests, to better understand what In the 1990s, Barrie Gunter was one

of a number of psychologists, This was two decades before

Cambridge Analytica was formed. Even in those early days,

there were concerns that the marketing of

psychographics, sometimes Our job, mine and other

psychologists, was really to make sure the science was adhered

to properly and that the claims In the end, I'm afraid,

that's where we parted company because he couldn't reach

an agreement on that. But psychographics

isn't science fiction. People volunteered to take

a psychological survey online. Their answers are then matched up

with details about their personal lives, their shopping habits,

what car they drive, Put that together and it builds

a psychological profile that can Eventually, once you've got

the software and you've got the methodology that can accurately

identify the mark as a personality, then it is possible then to target

messages at particular individuals, who will be unaware of the fact

you've been profiling them and that indeed

you may be able to find out things about them, which they might not be

consciously aware of themselves, becaise they wouldn't think

about the information they're They're very sophisticated

systems of analysis which are being developed which,

in the future, could potentially And that's where some

people get concerned. Could the stuff we post on Facebook

and other social media sites be used without our knowledge to bombard us

with psychologically-tailored Last month, the information

commissioner opened a formal investigation into the wider use

of data analytics by a number of different providers

in political campaigns. What we're looking at here,

and what the allegations have been about, is mashing up,

scraping, using large amounts of personal data, online data,

to micro-target or personalise, or segment, the delivery

of the messages without I think the allegation is that fair

practices and fair democracy is under threat if large data

companies are processing data in ways that are

invisible to the public. As part of their inquiries,

both the information commissioner and the Electoral Commission

are trying to establish whether Cambridge Analytica did

in fact do any work If, as the company now said,

they did no work at all, then perhaps they are simply

a victim of a tendency to talk You said you were working

on the EU referendum and it You said you were using

psychographics on the Trump campaign We've been absolutely consistent

in saying we did not work on the EU referendum,

and we said this to you, We made statements to that fact over

a nine or 12-month period, and we have also been consistent

in saying when we transferred our data analytics capability

from the Cruz campaign across to the Trump campaign

it was only five months until polling and we did not have

time to employ the rigorous psychological approach we had used

on the Cruz campaign. So, the answer to your

question is, of course, no. For some opponents of Brexit,

the idea that the EU referendum was hijacked by alt-right

hypnotists, wielding hi-tech, psychological weaponry looks perhaps

like a reasonable explanation. But the known facts don't quite

support this theory. Perhaps this is simply a case

of theatrics and overzealous PR. But it remains a story

of contradictions and More developments today

on the investigations into the use We are up to 95 buildings with

cladding found to be unfit here - There was, incidentally,

one in Germany today as well. An 11 storey block of flats

was evacuated there. Here, the government has

appointed an expert group but the industry itself

is already adapting. Remind us how many buildings can

have the wrong cladding on? It is a tale of two rule books. The

government issues its own building regulations with guidelines. Those

guidelines say if you are going to put something on the outside of a

building, a tall building, it has to be a minimal level of flame

proofing, basically. In the jargon, it has to be level A2. But when you

get the building inspector, what matters is the building is safe

overall and nobody checks the fine print unless things go wrong. So the

building inspectors have a different rule book and they say instead of

everything having to be at that A2 level, they say, if we do at test

and using this context, this bit is said, if you do this over here, you

can use this slightly more combustible material. When the

government has gone round pulling stuff of buildings and checking it,

they have discovered it is not all to the high standard. So the

industry is basically reacting to Grenfell? Yes, the NHP sea, one of

the esteemed sector bodies, produce guidelines who have said so many

people have done investigations and collected data and tests that showed

that sub A2, insulation, could be used with what they call B grade

cladding, so it is below the standards required by the

government. In certain context and certain limitations, that was

probably going to be fine. They have got in touch tonight to say that

because of the concerns about Grenfell Tower, which this body was

not involved in at all, they have pulled that stuff because they are

concerned about, in particular, the use of polyethylene tiles, such as

reused at Grenfell. They should point out the guidance they issued

was never used to approve the tiling at Grenfell. Thank you very much.

Yet another massive cyber attack hit organisations

across the developed world today, a ransomware attack

like the one that hit the NHS among others last month.

This one has been called Petya, and it seems that Ukraine

But as always, these viruses are to trace to a source.

Becky Pinkard is Vice President for Intelligence Operations

with the cybersecurity firm Digital Shadows.

She spent ten years at an institute specialising in cyber security

training. What do we know? What we are learning is they are calling it

Petya and not Petya. There is still a lot to be learned about what is

happening with this particular strain. It originated in the

Ukraine. It appears potentially to have been spread through a software

company which is a financial programming type of software. What

they are saying and what security researchers are looking at right now

is potentially the software company was attacked. The malware was

embedded into their process and that was shared out. What happened, back

in early May, the NHS and other institutions were attacked, the data

was locked up. Did they get it all back? Highly doubtful. We saw this

system was able to send the key to decrypt information and get any

information back from the malware authors to perform the decryption.

That was not working properly. There was no way for that experience to be

completed successfully. The assumption is a lot of people did

lose a lot of data. Absolutely. You would make the same assumption about

this one. The bigger problem is there was an e-mail address

associated with this. That has been shot of by the e-mail provider. You

cannot send them the money. There is no way for the malware author to

connect to that account. So, even if you want to pay the hostage ransom,

you cannot do it. You could make a payment to the bit coin used

separately e-mail your information to get the decryption key. You can

go to the bit coin to count and there is barely anything. I last

looked about an hour ago. There were 31 payments, about the time about

$80,000. That is unbelievable. What is your feeling about the people who

are hit by this, have back-up data or have it stored somewhere

untouchable from the machines that have been hit? What we're saying is

because of the Madoc experience, where clients are using that

software companies have been infected, hopefully those kinds of

companies will have back-up programmes in place. The fear of

what some will run into our interview systems and potentially

they will not have those back-up programmes. Some companies are

basically not saying when this hits them, I think. The data is not being

stolen. It is not like the customer data is being taken away. Is there

any good, public policy reasons for them telling us? Is it helpful that

the ransomware purveyors never find out that they have never actually

succeeded? If personally identifiable information, if that is

impacted, a lot of companies will have a regulatory need to report

that. There are regulatory requirements over in the structure.

For companies who do not have those impacts, we probably will not see.

Thank you. The Americans said today,

that they had evidence of President Assad planning another

chemical attack and that it would be It's a measure of the strangely

intense times that we are living The global role of the US is in flux

- are they keeping out of wars, Meanwhile Russia is flexing

its influence and the EU is working A good time to hold a conference

on international security, as the Centre for Policy Studies did

today. Among the speakers there,

was the former chief of the defence staff,

the professional head of the armed services,

General, Lord Richards. I went to meet him at the event

in the City of London, to get his take on where

the world is. But first, should Britain

support the US in any retaliation against a Syrian

government chemical attack? I think the British reaction

should be supportive, as I think Sir Michael Fallon said,

it should be proportionate. I'm not quite certain what that

means, but basically we should I think the key thing here,

and it's nice to see a bit of statesmanship or state craft

at work, is that they don't What they are saying is,

we are happy to work with you against Isis,

but don't, for goodness' sake, make the mistake of using chemical

weapons again, because all bets And if we felt the intelligence

was adequate, would you think we should actually join in,

for example, punishment At a time when the relationship

with America is probably more important than ever for us,

certainly no less important than it has been than at other critical

times in our history, I think it's very important

that we are alongside America if they ask us and they want us

to be there. Beyond the moral imperative

to demonstrate to the man, he is not going to use chemical

weapons and get away with it. There has been a dilemma

in our foreign policy, in American foreign policy

about which of the two objectives defeating Isis or defeating Assad

is the more important. In your view, it should

be Isis, I think? There's no doubt the

American focus is Isis. They will then say once Isis

is defeated, who knows? Assad's future might

then be on the table. But I think it unequivocal

in the American thing, They want to work with Russia to get

rid of Isis as quickly as possible and they don't want the Syrians

to interrupt that. Right, do you think on Syria

we can work with Putin? I think it should be

part of a bigger deal. There are things we could do

with Putin that would be part of a deal that might be

involved with Iran. The Iranians will very much not

like the Americans and Russians Because they are very happy

with Russia being clearly on their side and they don't

want to see their great ally Russia, being drawn

towards the western orbit. In a way, as you speak,

one can sense your frustration with the lack of global leadership

at the moment. You are not a fan of Trump,

I wouldn't have thought, you were not a particular fan

of Putin, strong man as he is. Who is the sort of global

leader that you admire? I have been banging

on at this conference about the need for statesmanship

and the absence of it. And I do think we are at a point

in world history where there I think we don't understand

what I called at Opac, wrongly, I am not necessarily

thinking negatively here. On social media, of the undermining

of the state because the state is no longer fully trusted by populations,

how are we going to deal with that? Because everyone believes whatever

they read on social media, which may be completely

incorrect or distorted. Where is society pulled,

in what direction? So climate change, international

crime, mass migration, there's all sorts of things that

make me think the world is in a very troubled state and needs

leadership and needs, what in the past, if you

are like me, would have Where you try and solve multiple

problems at the same time, because often there are deals to be

done when you bring Exactly the point, none

of that is happening, it's very transactional

at the moment. It may take ten years,

it's going to be difficult, it will take a lot of willpower

and a lot of leadership. But in answer to your question,

I think President Xi is a statesman. Now, is one of our deductions that

democratic countries no longer can breed statesmen

because they are beset by near Because there is a sense

at the moment we are under attack, we have had terrorist attacks,

we've had the Grenfell disaster. So there is a feeling of a nation

that's been through a lot. We have a weakened government

with a Prime Minister who is limping And we have, to put it mildly,

an unsettled status with regard to our relationship with Europe

and an awkward relationship with We are floating without an anchor

here, in a big ocean I think, while I was thinking

internationally of the need for strategy and strategic leaders

and statesmanship, there is absolutely no doubt this country

is crying out for that Now, I am a crossbencher

in the House of Lords and I am very careful,

or I try to be careful, not to get drawn too much

into party political issues. But as far as I am concerned,

we have a Prime Minister that's You know, her deal with the DUP,

people may not like, but it I think, echoing one

or two other people, we now must get behind the Prime

Minister. If there is a lot of debate

and discord over Brexit, that alone, let alone all the other things

we have just been talking about, it means that this country

is in a pretty sorry state Probably more so than the other

nations we've been talking You are not a fan of the EU,

you called them arrogant, I think and implied they had

overreached themselves, What should the British be thinking

in terms of security Because the Europeans are beginning

to think those Americans are perhaps not quite the allies we thought,

they will go it alone a little more. Nato becomes weakened

and then where are we left? Clearly, our security is completely

dependent on the security So Nato remains critical

and if there are European leaders that are silly enough to disentangle

themselves in some way from America, that would be a huge problem,

a lesson learned bitterly through the 20th century,

you don't do that. You need America to be locked

in to the security of Europe. Now sensitive viewers really should

look away at this point, as we leave you with a salute

to England's hardest hard man. Simon Smith was walking

through Reading on Saturday when an out-of-control double decker

bus ran into him full tilt. Amazingly, with NO major

injuries, Mr Smith got up, dusted himself off and,

rather understandably, It's not known what he drank, but I

bet it was Carling Black Label. Hello. A lot of rain in the forecast

for the