06/07/2017 Newsnight

I take pride in the words ich bin eine Berliner. The fundamental

question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.

The President says the West may not survive.

Is he right, or is he part of the problem?

I think the large English speaking democracies, Britain,

and the United States, are really moving rapidly

We'll discuss how the Alliance can weather these storms.

Also tonight, for some Remainers, the cause endures,

the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

The head of the CBI will make the case for a Brexit so soft,

And just how close is artificial intelligence?

It's literally in the past year we went from a place where it

would get it right about 80% of the time to a point where now

it's actually achieved human parody and speech recognition.

Something may have been lost in translation but Donald Trump

spent much of his Presidential campaign proudly proclaiming

that Vladimir Putin had described him as a genius.

This lofty regard was apparently mutual -

with Trump regularly expressing his admiration

Today, however, the American President seemed to place his

Russian counterpart on the other side of a purported war

During a speech in the Polish capital, Warsaw, he called on Russia

to stop destabilising Ukraine and other countries and to end

support for hostile regimes such as those in Syria and Iran.

With the pair due to meet tomorrow at the G20 summit in Hamburg,

Newsnight's Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban has been exploring

the American President's apocalyptic warning.

It's the President's second visit to Europe and today's

speech was billed as a big foreign policy moment.

Given in Warsaw's Krasinski Square in front of a memorial to the 1944

uprising against the Nazis, an appreciative audience had been

It fell to the First Lady to do the warm up.

The president of the United States, Donald J Trump.

And with that, Trump set out his stall of a West

in existential crisis and his formula for success

While we will always welcome new citizens who share our values

and love our people, our borders will always

be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind.

Today, the West is also confronted by the powers that

seek to test our will, undermine our confidence

To meet new forms of aggression, including propaganda,

financial crimes and cyber warfare, we must adapt our alliance

to compete effectively in new ways and on all new battlefields.

And here, having alluded to the Russian and Chinese threats,

he did at last state his commitment to Nato's mutual defence

But it was a distinctly Trumpian formula that shed little light

on the issue of how the West revives its fortunes economically.

A large part of the answer to that question depends on whether Macron

and Merkel can reignite the Franco-German motor,

rewrite Europe's fiscal rules and really generate growth again

That is where the hope lies and, if you like, the glass of champagne

is half full at the moment in Paris and in Berlin.

Today's speech owes much to White House strategy boss Steve Bannon.

You have an expansionist Islam and an expansionist China, right?

They are motivated, they are arrogant,

they are on the march and they think the Judaeo-Christian West

His view of the world revolves around hard power and the need

Even so, many more mainstream conservatives

I think the president struck the right tone on Polish soil today,

a strong reiteration, I think, of the importance

of the transatlantic alliance and a reminder of the values that

The illiberality of this message and emphasis on religious faith

worked well for this Polish audience, but it's out of kilter

It was very significant, not only that he chose Poland,

you know, which has got that law and justice government,

a right-wing government, a very Christian government that

refuses to take refugees from the Middle East

and is being sued by the EU over that, but it's very significant

that he, in his speech in Warsaw, did not use the word democracy once.

The President today claimed that billions and billions of extra

defence spending was now pouring into Nato as a result

So typical transactional Trump, having got what he wanted,

he gave the Europeans what he thought they were after.

That's all very well, but it hardly builds Western unity.

After today's Warsaw event, Hamburg looked very different this

evening as the President arrived for a G20 meeting.

Violent protests happened pre-Trump, of course,

but in tone and substance, the President's message is hardly

I'm joined now by Pulitzer prize winning historian,

Eric Foner and Susan Glasser - former Foreign Policy editor

in chief and the first editor of Politico magazine.

Susan, was it significant, D-Link, or how significant was it that the

word democracy did not appear at all in that speech? -- do you think.

Significant but not a surprise. Me doesn't use the word democracy

often. Some people here were likening his speech to a European

version of his American carnage and inauguration speech. -- Trump

doesn't you do a clash of civilisations, harking

back to Samuel Huntington's 1993 work where is spam replaces Russia

as the enemy of Western domination in the world. Does that tally with

what you heard today? What was interesting was Trump was laying out

this apocalyptic vision of the world divided into the forces of light,

darkness, and it gives you an insight into what you might call the

intellectual origins of Trump's outlook. It may seem absurd to put

intellectual and Trump in the same sentence, because he doesn't read

books, he has no literature curiosity. But with people like

Steve Bannon around him, this is their view of the world, that it has

always been these clashes of civilisations. That our whole

civilisation is under assault from either Isis or radical Islam, as

they call it, maybe the Chinese in the future rising. This is a view

which isn't particularly conducive to compromise, to negotiation. Steve

Bannon steams to think we are living back in the age of the Crusades

where Christianity and Islam are at war. -- seems to think. And for the

future of the world. If you look at Isis, it is ridiculous, it is a

small group of violent criminal people but they don't pose a threat

to the US or the UK. I mean, the Cold War, the existence of these

countries was under threat, you know? From nuclear warfare. But, you

know, this apocalyptic vision is not really an accurate representation of

the way the world is today. Yet the rhetoric, Susan, of an assault on

Western values, it puts bums on seats, doesn't it? What value is

mighty realistically be able to persuade Americans are being

threatened by a resurgent China, or and expansionist Islam? It is murky.

What exactly is the clash of civilisations here? That is why

Trump's speech today is probably really unlikely to amount to much in

terms of policy. I was struck by the fact that you know who it reminds me

of? Vladimir Putin's rhetoric. You captured earlier in the programme

the tension of this on the one hand critical language towards Russia you

haven't always seen Trump used. He suggested that they stopped shoring

Assad. But that is different to the full throated, bombastic even common

rhetorical nature of this speech. It is actually Vladimir Putin who often

talks in terms very much like this. He says the number one threat Russia

and Europe faces is from terrorism. He said that from the beginning of

his tenure as Russia's leader. And he talks about restoring

conservative values in a vague way. I think Trump was unclear exactly

what the existential threat is right now. Do you think he knows himself

what the existential threat is? Or are you casting him in the role of

Steve Bannon's glove puppet? It's Steve Bannon, what we call the

alternative right in the US. There is another forebear of Trump. You

didn't mention this. But in his speech he started denouncing

bureaucracy. Nobody likes to defend bureaucracy, but this goes back to

an obscure radical, James Burnham, who wrote a book in the early 1940s,

which has been picked up again in these obscure right-wing website to

argue that the threat today is not from a standard from the

administrative state. Trump attacks what they call regulation, or that

kind of thing. That is a trope extreme writers are fond of using,

that it is the state itself which is the danger to Western freedoms.

Burnham contended that communism and capitalism were essentially two

sides of the same undesirable coin. What word would you employ to

describe whatever alternative it is that they want to replace the old

world order with? Would you did not mention is that beneath this is an

exclusive vision of what American civilisation or Western civilisation

is. It is fundamentally Christian. It is fundamentally white. Other

peoples don't have a role in it according to them. You could call it

a white nationalism. That is what we often call it in the US. It is

explicit now. Not in this speech but in the right-wing website and

call-in radio. The racial element here. And the religious element is

very strong. That goes all the way against the traditions of American

values of separation of church and state and pluralism, and tolerance.

Those are threats to our civilisation right now. They are

coming from within. Susan, the meeting with Vladimir Putin

tomorrow, do you speculate on what a positive outcome might be? I would

caution people against thinking this is a definitive moment of

confrontation when we will find out once and for all just what is the

deal between Trump and Putin, or even find out what our policy is.

We've just heard there is only going to be Donald Trump and Rex Tillerson

and their translators in the meeting with Sergei Lavrov, the Foreign

Minister, and President Putin himself. It is going to be an hour

or less. Once you add the translation in, it amounts to a

short chat between two countries. Even if they are talking, has been

reported, and I terrorism moves, can you imagine any major significant

arrangement being agreed to in half an hour? -- anti-terrorism moves.

Forgive me, I need to move on. Thank you both so much for your time this

evening. Staying with Trump, Russia -

and, indeed, Ukraine - the Hungarian foreign

minister, Peter Sijarto, about being positioned both

politically and geographically right in the middle of the changing

political landscape. We also discussed Brexit, of course,

but I began by asking him about his government's perceived

proximity to the Kremlin and possible problems this poses

for Hungarian citizens in Ukraine. I don't like this kind

of stigmatisation. And I don't like this kind

of simplification of things. It was fair to say it is

a friendly relationship. And if you live in Central Europe

you know that you can't afford Because it's not just

European countries that I'd love to know, where do

you think, from what he said since becoming President,

Donald Trump sits on that scale? Well, you know, actually,

we cross fingers for And we cross fingers for him to be

able to build a balanced relationship with Russia

because you know, as I told you, we are living in Central Europe

and we have a very clear Which says that whenever

there was a conflict between East and West,

Central Europe always lost. And we don't want to

be losers any more. So, when we argue, or when we hope

for a better relationship between the US and Russia,

it's not because we are pro-Russia or pro-US,

it's because we are pro-Hungarian. Did you agree with him

when he said earlier today I totally agree with the position

that the civilised world The better the relationship between

the US and Russia is better for us. The worst relationship between US

and Russia is the worst for us. You know, we are living

in central Europe, OK? Is it fair to describe

Viktor Orban's government as being one of the more Eurosceptic

in the European Union? No, Hungarian people,

including the Hungarian government, But what I can tell

you is the following, that we are absolutely pro-European,

we want strong European Union because Hungary can be really strong

in a strong European Union. 80% of our trade goes

on with the EU countries. So we are interested

in a strong European Union. But we have a serious

debate with Brussels, with some other member states,

about how to get there. So we say that the federalist

approach will not work out. So we are rather on a sovereignty

path, saying that strong European Union must be based

on strong member states. You know, to be very honest,

we regretted the decision. Because it's a big

political and economic loss for the European Union,

because you had a very strong voice in the debate

about the future of Europe. So this debate will now be

unbalanced because the leader of one camp, or the strongest voice of one

camp, falls out. In the meantime, here

we have a nightmare scenario, If there is no deal,

if there is no comprehensive economic trade and investment

agreement, then we will be in big trouble in Europe,

because the last time we were able to implement a free trade

agreement was in 2011. So the problem is that the EU is

very slow on free trade agreements. And if Britain gets free hands,

then you will be able to sign free trade agreements with India,

with Turkey, with the US, with Australia, with

which we do not have. I mean, the European Union doesn't

have free trade agreements. So if this is the case, then it

will harm our competitiveness, harm the competitiveness

of European Union furthermore. So that's why we are pushing

for a fair, I don't like this Do you understand the

categorisation, because I don't. You don't understand, OK,

so that's a common point. We want fair Brexit,

that's for sure. Balanced, fair Brexit,

which will end up in mutual benefits But we want the most comprehensive

economic trade and investment partnership with the UK

in the future. But I think that we are

on the right track. I hope European institutions

are ready to negotiate in a, Because what we don't

want is the following, that you look back to the time

of your referendum. Then some of the reactions come

on behalf of European institutions, where,

like, as those people took it And we don't want any

European institutions to sit at the negotiating table as a group

of insulted people. And we don't want the European

negotiators or EU negotiators What we want is to have a good

deal at the end, a fair deal, Earlier this evening,

the director-general of the CBI Carolyn Fairbairn warned

in a lecture at the LSE that Brexit uncertainty is starting

to damage the UK economy. She cited companies changing plans

and slowing investment in anticipation of what she called

the "serious disruption" that would ensue if the UK were to leave

the EU without a deal. Her comments came as International

Trade Minister Liam Fox appeared to add his weight to his Cabinet

colleague Andrea Leadsom's recent contention that reporting unwelcome

statistics about Brexit He claimed in the Commons that some

elements of the media would rather see Britain fail

than Brexit succeed. It speaks perhaps too difficult

truth to you, which is when you describe an environment you consider

less than conducive to business, you run the risk of making that

environment even less conducive to business, talking the country down,

if you like? One of the things that is really important to have now is a

realistic debate. When we hear from firms across the country large and

small about the way uncertainty is beginning to affect investment

decisions, I think it is very important that we say that but also

that we put ideas on the table so what were doing today is putting an

idea on the table which is not about the weather of Brexit, is about the

how. Whether with an H. It is about a Brexit that protects jobs and

investment, that is what we are tabling and a proposal that means

the UK would stay in the customs union and the single market as a

bridge to a future deal, it has the added advantage that there will be

only one transition. How long is the bridge? As short as is possible. It

is very difficult to tell. It depends on the final point is, the

final point is very different from today. Win over Canada free trade

deal took seven years, we hope it would be very much shorter than

that. It is very important to say this has no interest in anything

that is open-ended and more uncertainty, so a short as

practically possible but something that gives businesses the time to

adapt. You say it is important to have the debate now, why now and not

a year ago after the Lancaster house speech? There is something very

important about that because we are heading into the time when companies

plan their investment and every sector, every company, has a

different point at which they start planning things. So a bakery in

Northern Ireland, we know it would take them 20 months if they wanted

to relocate to the Republic because of tariffs, so they are starting to

think now about what they are having to do. Airlines, it is a year before

because they are thinking about passenger reservations. So every

company has a tipping point and we are heading into that period and

that is why we are beginning to hear more concern from our members about

those cliff edges. You did mention the election but you wouldn't be

making the speech of Theresa May had secured a three figure majority. I

think we would have done. Word for word? I think so because we have an

important role to play at the moment, talking about what grassroot

businesses, large and small, across the country are saying and they are

saying it is beginning to bite and it is important that we are able to

say that but also that we have a simple solution on the table. But it

is not a solution in the strictest sense of the word, it is holding

tactic, a postponement of either pain the unknown. I think the

questionnaire dancers is how you give more confidence to business now

to invest for the future -- I think the question it and so. The economy

is a flywheel, so investment today is jobs in the future and I think

our priority today is that, it is so important for growth in the future

so let's deal with that problem first. The almost irresistible

subtext of all of this is when we reached the end of the bridge,

things at that end can't be as good as they were at this end. I think

that is an area where we should be optimistic. I think we can still say

that we need to get to an in principle agreement by March 2019.

One of the important benefits of the proposal we put on the table today

is that you can focus all the effort on that final deal, you are not

talking about some interim other transitional arrangement which would

take up a lot of time, so we think it would make it more likely to get

to that outline deal by March 20 19. Except of course March 2019 is the

date on which an awful lot of people would be expecting freedom of

movement to end immediately and your proposal would well, continue at

indefinitely. Not indefinitely. Indefinitely as in you can't tell me

how long your bridge is. Firms accept that freedom of movement well

and and again, this is about trade-offs and about timing. Firms

are committed to, we know we are going to need to increase training

and we are going to need to scale up to fill the gaps that are created.

That is going to take time, so the other thing that the bridge to the

future will give us is the chance to prepare, the chance to get ready, so

I think that is a transition as well. I think a lot of people

watching may be thinking that you would quite like to stay on the

bridge for ever, and see you as one of these on crushed saboteurs.

Really clear that that is not the case. I will go back to the point

that business is one certainty, not some open-ended period of

uncertainty, so as short as practically possible but long enough

for the Government, for firms, for people to adapt. Businesses do think

in years and they will need time to get ready, so it is a practical

proposal that gives the certainty now and that bridge to the future.

It is practical but it is almost completely unpolitical. Is that the

definition of your role, you represent the interests of your

members and don't worry about the difficulty that a Prime Minister may

have in delivering the plan you describe? Well, I think everybody

has an interest in the success of the economy and jobs and prosperity

and I think one of the things we have seen since the election that is

very welcome is the economy back centrestage, people are talking

about it and how we will pay the public services, about the way we

have jobs for our children, so I think that is where this comes

together. That is why I do think we have a responsibility as businesses

to talk about investment today, jobs in the future. So I'm hoping

politics and economics can come together in this. Fingers crossed.

Carolyn Fairbairn, many thanks indeed.

There is always an element of chance in predicting the future, obviously,

but the broad consensus among tech watchers is the biggest of all next

big things will be AI, or artificial intelligence. Machines will be able

to do things that for millennia, we have blithely presumed would always

be the exclusive domain of humanity. Reasoning, recognising speech, text,

images, collaboration. The impact from jobs to healthcare ,

from transport to education is likely to be as profound

as the industrial and information Our technology editor David Grossman

has been given exclusive access to Microsoft's AI labs in Seattle

to see how this There's nothing perhaps that

looks quite so dated Seattle's salute to science

in the century to come. See how man will live and work

and play in the year 2000. Seattle's Space Needle and monorail,

built for the '62 World's Fair, probably tell us more

about the assumptions of that time Most often, predictions miss

the really profound shifts. What Eve will look like in A.D.

2000. Like this pre-war assumption

that the 21st century woman of fashion would still have a lady's

maid to help her dress. Shoes will have cantilever heels

and an electric belt will adapt Pity then the people that work here,

this is Building 99 In here, the predictions

that they make determine the future of the company and perhaps,

if they are right, We are betting the company

on advances in AI. I've been given exclusive access

to meet the people and see the projects that Microsoft believe

will shape the future. It reached the point now

where people can have, you know, very natural conversations

with software and software can I look at how they were

actually walking... Eric Horvitz is head

of Microsoft's AI programme. Even the lifts here run

on this new technology. So much of our civilisation,

what we think is special about humans, is based

on our intellects, on our ability to see and understand reason,

inverse and collaborate to see and understand reason,

converse and collaborate and for the first time in history,

we are getting close to building machines that have some

of that intellect. We went from a place

where we would get it right about 80% of the time to a point

where, now, it's actually achieved human parity in speech recognition

and that's something that just You could probably make sense

of the jumble of colours and shapes in this photograph almost instantly,

even though chances are you've But consider what it would take

for a machine to do that. We've taken natural language

processing research, computer vision research and had

people from those to field work computer vision research and had

people from those two fields work together to be able to generate

sentences about pictures. Here, the sentence that we generated

with no context other than the contents

of the image here is "A man swimming

in a pool of water." You know, it used to be the case

that it took thousands and thousands of images and hours

and hours to train. Now we are down to dozens

and minutes and seconds So the building blocks for an AI

world are almost complete. Computers can now not only recognise

pictures and objects, but gestures and video and speech

and text, faces and even emotion. All of these skills can be used

by developers in an almost infinite variety of combinations

to create new applications. There's been research that

Microsoft's been doing Only recently are we seeing these

services at the level of quality at a developer can actually build

on and have reliable experiences from, because,

you know, prior to that, the amount of data required to truly

make high, confident predictions from artificial intelligence wasn't

there and the computing But a world of super intelligent

computers understanding everything isn't everyone's idea

of technological perfection. Does any part of this

future terrify you at all? I'm concerned with potential

misuse of this technology by malevolent forces,

by people with ill will. By state and non-state actors

who can gain strong powers I haven't also think that the answer

to some of that is the AI itself, because there is no better defence

and no better detector of And very soon, we might forget

we are talking to computers at all. AI systems can have human facing

front ends known as bots For example, Xiaoice has been

developed by Microsoft to interact with people on Chinese social media

and with every conversation, Xiaoice learns both

about the individual and humanity. Absolutely, that is what they

call me around here. More efficiently, Dan Driscoll

is Development Manager and Principal Architect

of the Microsoft bot framework. They form emotional connections

with some of these chatbots and have I think the average for Xiaoice

is 23 turns per conversation, so people will chat, will say,

"Hey, how are you doing?" "I am having a good day,

how are you doing?" They form a kind of emotional

relationship and that is one So many bots have both

a sort of like a factual, an IQ component and an emotional

or personality EQ component. AI will not only be able

to know and recognise everything and everyone,

it will know how to charm us, It will know how to reassure us

and how to frighten us. Instead of us operating

the computers, the computers will be Whoever controls the AI probably

controls the future. There's already disquiet about using

Big Data to target voters. Well, imagine what an all seeing,

all knowing AI could do. Are you concerned at all,

for example, about AI elections, AI systems can be designed

to persuade, to... In an algorithmic view to optimise

goals of changing someone's believes or enhancing the beliefs about one

thing or another. The prospect that some day,

data mining, data analysis, very close targeting a particular

demographics can be used in elections to influence

elections is a very, On the one hand, we can see

and we can imagine how authoritarian regimes can use these technologies

through tracking, surveillance, persuasion, that would

strengthen this authoritarian On the other hand, these

techniques of AI also open up the world for pluralism,

for discussion and collaboration, understanding and tracking,

you know, understanding the sources of persuasion and signalling

coming into one's life. So we see this prospect of who is

going in different directions. So we shouldn't ignore

the huge potential benefits. About 30 miles outside Seattle,

I saw Microsoft's AI form. Data driven farming

could revolutionise how However, measuring precise moisture

and nutrient levels for each part of the field would require thousands

of sensors and the Instead, an AI model of the farm can

be built with just a few sensors in the ground and a few photographs

from the air. This is going to help

the farmers reduce costs, use much less water,

use much less lime, use less fertiliser,

use less nutrients and stuff. So this is definitely

going to have an impact on reducing the cost as well as less harm

on the environment. And the early indications

are that yields will rise Using cheap cameras

and tethered helium balloons, AI could revolutionise subsistence

farming in the developing world. Artificial intelligence is growing

fast, getting smarter all the time. While some fear it could end

of our species, others believe it Very soon, AI will take off

and we will find out if we control It's a mighty tome but when you

consider that its author Ibram X Kendi aspires to provide

the definitive history of racist ideas in America,

it's perhaps surprising that Stamped From The Beginning only runs

to just north of 500 pages. The title comes from a speech

given to Congress in 1860 by Jefferson Davis, the Mississipi

senator who went on to serve as president of the Confederate

states of America. He argued that so-called 'black

inferiority' had been stamped from the beginning on the bodies

of Africans at the Ibram X Kendi joins me down

the line from Florida. It is a history book obviously, but

it's motivation seems very of the moment. It is because I think I

wanted to show readers that we have been engaged in a racial debate, the

same racial debate we are engaged in right now, really for hundreds of

years. That racial debate seeks to answer the question, why does racial

inequality exist? Why do racial disparities exist in our societies?

This book really takes the reader through hundreds of years of

different people answering that question. And those that have

expressed racist ideas have stated racial inequalities, because black

people are inferior, and those have expressed anti-racist ideas have

been suffering as a result of racial discrimination. Many people would

point to the double election of Barack Obama as perhaps the

beginning of the end of the history of racism. The one you describe. Yet

you describe him as a following in the racist footsteps of every

president since Richard Nixon. One of the things I wanted to do is

state a very clear definition of a racist idea. And then apply that

definition to many different thinkers. And I ended up before

applying it to anyone. I ended up applying it to myself and realising

that I had even expressed racist ideas. And people I admire like

Frederick Douglass, and even Barack Obama, expressed racist ideas,

suggesting there was something wrong and inferior about black people. I

think that's how powerful and how widespread and how believable these

ideas have been throughout American history. You also address the issue

of why people in power choose to invoke the fear of a black man, of

the black person, in the minds of white people, what answers did you

arrive at? I think the underlying, sort of, thesis of the text is

showing the ways of which racist ideas are merging and people are

consuming those ideas and becoming fearful, becoming hateful, becoming

ignorant, that these people are creating and producing these racist

ideas to justify racist policies. I think people can understand if you

are a slave owner and you make money from owning slaves, black slaves,

you are going to create racist ideas to convince others that black people

should be enslaved. That black people are so barbaric that if they

are not enslaved they will just ravage society. Then you have people

who consume those and then begin believing those ideas. That anecdote

is indicative of the way racist ideas have function throughout

American history. Do you worry you may have unwittingly created a

compendium of inspirational racists? You site so much verbatim evidence

from historical American political giants, from Abraham Lincoln to even

Theodore Roosevelt, expressing, well, an explicit fear so that

people on the right can say, we are right, even Abraham Lincoln agrees.

Unfortunately, as a scholar, I didn't have the opportunity to think

of the effect of this definition. I wanted to create a definition of a

racist idea which is very simple, any idea that suggests a racial

group is superior or inferior to another racial group in anyway. That

definition ended up becoming applied to people I didn't realise it was

going to be. But again I think that has been one of the problems. That

we... So many people have tried to define their ideas outside of

racism. And it has left us with a nearer -- and it has left us with an

inaccurate idea of it. INAUDIBLE

If we actually look at American history. During the enslavement era,

by the time of the end of slavery, 4 million, 5 million poor whites,

largely kept in poverty due to the riches of slave holders. Then you

have the Reconstruction era which was a boon for many working class

and poor whites, as it was for pre-blacks. But then that era was of

course undermined by the rise of Jim Crow. Ben White poverty rose just as

black poverty rose. The civil rights movement was great for black people

and also great for many Americans. -- then white poverty rose just as

black poverty rose. In this order to this spiralling inequality in white

America. Ultimately you see this history of not only racism being bad

for black people, but bad for almost everyone. Many thanks for your time

this evening. Before we go, it has

been ordained that today Yet by whom, and for what purpose,

other than to assist news producers in their quest to fill the gaping

void marked "content", Marking International Kissing Day

will no doubt become Remember to tune in tomorrow,

when Evan will be in the chair. That's what's wrong with you -

you should be kissed and often. # Woah Baby

# (Kiss me Baby) # Woah Baby

# (Love to hold you) # Woah Baby

#(Kiss me baby) # Woah Baby

# (Love to hold you) # Woah Baby

# (Kiss me Baby) # Woah Baby

# (Love to hold you) # Woah Baby

# (Kiss me baby) # Woah Baby

# (Love to hold you) Maybe we should kiss just

to break the tension? Friday promises to be a quieter day.

A damp start with the weather front drifting across Scotland, dragging

its