:00:00. > :00:00.With both sides still far apart, time is running out for a deal
:00:00. > :00:30.Another round of talks between the Scottish and UK
:00:31. > :00:33.Governments fails to break the deadlock over new tax
:00:34. > :00:41.If you are taking on new powers then you take on the risk that something
:00:42. > :00:44.goes wrong on the economy and you don't get the revenue -
:00:45. > :00:50.The starting gun is fired on the most unpredictable
:00:51. > :01:02.And Will Smith talks to John Beattie about the connection
:01:03. > :01:05.between American Football and brain damage the subject
:01:06. > :01:11.A big part of why I wanted to make this film was as a parent I didn't
:01:12. > :01:15.know - I sent my child out there, and I think at a minimum you have
:01:16. > :01:24.to know so you can make an informed decision.
:01:25. > :01:27.Another day, another set of talks between the Scottish Government
:01:28. > :01:29.and the Treasury that have failed to reach agreement
:01:30. > :01:34.It's the eighth time they've met and still no deal.
:01:35. > :01:40.If agreement isn't reached soon on the funding formula that
:01:41. > :01:42.will underpin new tax powers for Scotland,
:01:43. > :01:45.Holyrood may not have time to scrutinise the deal this side
:01:46. > :02:00.And huge change. We're about to get new powers on tax and welfare which
:02:01. > :02:03.the UK Government says will transform Hauritz into one of the
:02:04. > :02:10.world's most powerful devolved parliaments. But is all that about
:02:11. > :02:17.to be scuppered by a row over how it gets paid for? Scotland's budget is
:02:18. > :02:21.currently funded by the UK Treasury through the Barnett formula, and is
:02:22. > :02:25.more powers come north to Holyrood, the size of that part has to be cut.
:02:26. > :02:31.And that is the issue that is causing problems. Today, the Deputy
:02:32. > :02:36.First Minister John Swinney attended the latest in a series of
:02:37. > :02:39.negotiations with the Treasury in an attempt to agree a solution. But
:02:40. > :02:45.after several hours of talks, no deal. We have had a lot of
:02:46. > :02:48.discussion a long discussion on the issues in connection with the fiscal
:02:49. > :02:51.framework. We're still trying to get to the point of agreement. The
:02:52. > :02:57.Treasury put forward some proposals today, I've put forward alternative
:02:58. > :03:02.proposals at our last meeting and we discussed those further. This is our
:03:03. > :03:07.eighth meeting so far and we remain absolutely committed, the UK
:03:08. > :03:12.Government, to getting a good fiscal framework that is the right fiscal
:03:13. > :03:18.framework for taxpayers in Scotland and for the rest of the UK. There
:03:19. > :03:23.are issues still to resolve, but we remain up the about getting a deal.
:03:24. > :03:28.So how might Scotland's Treasury grant be cut? One option is known as
:03:29. > :03:35.index deduction with the Treasury grants declines in line with UK tax
:03:36. > :03:38.revenues. Then there is per capita index deduction where the cuts takes
:03:39. > :03:43.account of Scotland's slower population growth compared to the
:03:44. > :03:47.rest of the UK. This is thought to be the Scottish Government's
:03:48. > :03:50.preferred method. A third option is known as levels adjustment programme
:03:51. > :03:55.funding is based on a population share of change in taxes in the rest
:03:56. > :04:00.of the UK, a bit like how the Barnett formula currently works. And
:04:01. > :04:04.there is another issue. The final agreement, whatever that is, is not
:04:05. > :04:09.supposed to put Scotland at a disadvantage, the so-called no
:04:10. > :04:14.detriment clause. But some experts argue that is almost impossible to
:04:15. > :04:18.achieve. You have to have detriment. If you are taking on new powers then
:04:19. > :04:23.you take on the risk that something goes wrong in the economy and you do
:04:24. > :04:27.not get the tax revenues that you expected. So you have to live with
:04:28. > :04:30.that. You cannot have a situation where under all states of the world
:04:31. > :04:37.things will be no worse than they would be under the current Barnett
:04:38. > :04:42.formula. And time is now running short. The agreement on Scotland's
:04:43. > :04:46.new funding deal needs to be wrapped up well ahead of the Scottish
:04:47. > :04:49.parliament elections in May. Without it, the prospect of new financial
:04:50. > :04:51.powers for Holyrood could be bleak. Well, earlier today the BBC's
:04:52. > :04:55.Scotland Editor Sarah Smith spoke to leading economist and Principal
:04:56. > :04:57.of Glasgow University, She started by asking him
:04:58. > :05:03.whether the Scottish Government is right to say that the Treasury
:05:04. > :05:14.proposals could cost Scotland They are absolutely right about
:05:15. > :05:18.that, and I have proposed a particular methodology, or supported
:05:19. > :05:23.a methodology called capita induction, which tends to protect
:05:24. > :05:29.Scotland against additional democratic risk. And if we were to
:05:30. > :05:36.go with for instance indexed deduction, over the next ten years
:05:37. > :05:45.we could use the' lose -- we could lose Jamila to the millions of
:05:46. > :05:48.pounds. Why just because Scotland's population is growing more slowly
:05:49. > :05:52.does that mean they would get less money? The reason is because unlike
:05:53. > :05:58.per capita index deduction those other formulae don't ensure Scotland
:05:59. > :06:02.against additional democratic risk. The UK has a peculiar demographic
:06:03. > :06:08.structure, of course. Immigration to Scotland is likely to be far less
:06:09. > :06:12.than immigration to London and the south-east over the next 20-30 years
:06:13. > :06:15.the office of National to sticks predicts that those patterns will
:06:16. > :06:19.continue. In Scotland does not have the powers to do anything about
:06:20. > :06:22.that. We don't do not have any separate immigration policy and any
:06:23. > :06:26.attempt to do that through post of the work visas have not been
:06:27. > :06:29.accepted. Scotland does not have the leverage to do anything about that,
:06:30. > :06:34.so it seems unreasonable for them to take on the risk. There are people
:06:35. > :06:36.who say that if we sign up to the methodology the Scottish Government
:06:37. > :06:42.one that would be unfair to English taxpayers. That is one argument that
:06:43. > :06:45.has been put forward, the taxpayer fairness argument, so for instance
:06:46. > :06:48.if the UK Government were to raise taxes in the future to pay for
:06:49. > :06:52.English NHS or the English education, through the per capita
:06:53. > :06:58.method Scotland would get some additional funding which it should
:06:59. > :07:00.not have. You can adjust to try to take account of that. It would mean
:07:01. > :07:04.an additional tweaks to the formulae, but you can do that. And
:07:05. > :07:09.of the three method the capita method is the easiest one to tweak
:07:10. > :07:15.in such a way as to take account, and make sure that Smith is fully
:07:16. > :07:19.adhered to. Smith had these various no detriment clauses, and the three
:07:20. > :07:24.methodologies set those clauses to a different extent. In my view the per
:07:25. > :07:29.capita one is the only one that can meet the requirements of Smith, the
:07:30. > :07:32.other two for short of the no detriment to Scotland, and frankly
:07:33. > :07:37.cannot be adapted as far as I can tell. There are people in England
:07:38. > :07:39.who think that England gets too much money, that the Barnett formula is
:07:40. > :07:45.too generous and they want to correct that. But the fiscal
:07:46. > :07:49.framework is trying to deliver Smith and the vow that preceded Smith, and
:07:50. > :07:52.that started off by saying that the Barnett formula shall be the formula
:07:53. > :07:57.which is at the heart of that settlement. And then there were no
:07:58. > :08:02.detriment clauses upended to that. If this is about delivering Smith,
:08:03. > :08:06.it has to start with Barnett and enshrining Barnett, and not then
:08:07. > :08:11.undermining it and having a bit of detriment. It is about no detriment,
:08:12. > :08:14.and therefore I cannot see any other formula delivering that whilst being
:08:15. > :08:15.fair to the rest of the UK taxpayers.
:08:16. > :08:17.Professor Anton Muscatelli speaking to Sarah Smith.
:08:18. > :08:20.Just before we came on air I spoke to Professor Michael Keating,
:08:21. > :08:23.Professor of politics at Aberdeen University and Director
:08:24. > :08:25.of the Centre For Constitutional Change.
:08:26. > :08:28.I started by asking him whether the differences
:08:29. > :08:30.between the Treasury and Scottish Government may prove
:08:31. > :08:38.to be irreconcilable or is it all just political manouvering?
:08:39. > :08:44.It's mostly about politics. There will be an agreement eventually
:08:45. > :08:47.because most sites have a very strong incentive to reach an
:08:48. > :08:51.agreement, and because it is about money there will be a compromise.
:08:52. > :08:54.You can always make a compromise about money, and probably they will
:08:55. > :08:58.get the arithmetic to work around it. The difficulty, however, with
:08:59. > :09:03.this is selling whatever deal they get. Because of David Cameron is
:09:04. > :09:07.seen as being too generous to scuttle his own backbenchers will
:09:08. > :09:12.not like it. There is a lot of discontent in Wales and Northern
:09:13. > :09:15.Ireland and they will be looking for their own deals, and this is about
:09:16. > :09:19.the curious way we do public finance in this country. There is a
:09:20. > :09:21.negotiation about Scotland, a separate one for Wales and Northern
:09:22. > :09:25.Ireland, and then England comes along at the end rather than having
:09:26. > :09:29.a single system for the whole country. Whatever you do for one
:09:30. > :09:35.part of the UK, the others will complain. Is it in the end for
:09:36. > :09:38.Scotland possible to design an enduring formula that will make sure
:09:39. > :09:43.that neither Scotland nor the rest of the UK actually loses out? That
:09:44. > :09:46.is very difficult to do. A lot of people say that you could introduce
:09:47. > :09:51.a single system for the whole of the UK based on need, so resources go to
:09:52. > :09:57.where the need is greatest. That would be just fair, it could be
:09:58. > :10:02.worked out so that it could be a long-term plan. The difficulty is
:10:03. > :10:05.getting from here to there, because if you're going to change the system
:10:06. > :10:08.that will be winners and losers, and as we know the winners stay very
:10:09. > :10:14.quiet and the losers shout from the rooftops. Thinking about the deals
:10:15. > :10:20.on the table at the moment, we do not know exactly what they are
:10:21. > :10:23.discussing, but the method favoured by Anton Moscow telly and the
:10:24. > :10:27.Scottish Government, would that not involve Scotland having its cake and
:10:28. > :10:32.eating it as well? That's what everyone wants to have. It gets
:10:33. > :10:34.extremely technical but the UK Government and the Treasury seem to
:10:35. > :10:42.have moved a little way towards the Scottish position. And what Anton
:10:43. > :10:44.Muscatelli was proposing would be in the interest of the Scottish
:10:45. > :10:47.Government, so it is not surprisingly would take up that
:10:48. > :10:52.because they think they would gain from it. Ultimately it is a question
:10:53. > :10:57.of political advantage and arriving at political compromise. This all
:10:58. > :11:00.centres around having to keep the Barnett formula. Do you think you
:11:01. > :11:05.can reconcile keeping it and devolving taxes to this extent?
:11:06. > :11:09.Whatever we get might be called the Barnett formula but it is not the
:11:10. > :11:13.Barnett formula as we understood it. The Barnett formula in the past was
:11:14. > :11:15.driven by expenditure levels in England, Scotland, Wales and
:11:16. > :11:19.Northern Ireland got their share of that. This simply does not apply
:11:20. > :11:22.when you have devolved taxes. That is why we are introducing all kinds
:11:23. > :11:28.of other criteria that were not in the Barnett formula. In the Smith
:11:29. > :11:31.commission and the parties' 's emissions to the commission they all
:11:32. > :11:36.wanted to keep the Barnett formula but all had different versions of
:11:37. > :11:41.what the Barnett formula means. Do you think whatever deal they thrash
:11:42. > :11:46.out will be a lasting solution? That is very difficult to say. We know
:11:47. > :11:51.that putting public finances is extremely difficult. Governments
:11:52. > :11:54.keep missing their spending and debt and deficit target. It is extremely
:11:55. > :11:58.difficult to model or plan the future. We do not know what the
:11:59. > :12:03.world will be like in five or ten years' time. And it is exacerbated
:12:04. > :12:09.in the congregations of the system itself. Inevitably there will be
:12:10. > :12:12.unanticipated consequences. People will demand that the formula be
:12:13. > :12:18.revised, Welsh and the Northern Irish will pile in there, so I do
:12:19. > :12:24.not see there being a stable and agreed formula. But it should be
:12:25. > :12:27.sent to UK is not the own country having these problems. All over
:12:28. > :12:30.Europe governments are grappling with how you distribute finance over
:12:31. > :12:31.parts of the country that is economically efficient and socially
:12:32. > :12:39.just. All eyes are on the mid-western
:12:40. > :12:41.state of Iowa tonight, where the starting gun has been
:12:42. > :12:44.fired on the US Presidential race. It's shaping up to be one
:12:45. > :12:47.of the most exciting and unpredictable
:12:48. > :12:48.contests in decades. A year ago, who'd have imagined
:12:49. > :12:50.Donald Trump as most likely Or Hillary Clinton as anything other
:12:51. > :12:54.than a shoo-in for the Joining me now from Iowa,
:12:55. > :13:20.is the BBC's Washington Expectations are being turned on
:13:21. > :13:25.their head. What is the latest? Who would have
:13:26. > :13:32.thought the contest would have turned out the way it has? Donald
:13:33. > :13:40.Trump on the Republican side and Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side.
:13:41. > :13:49.The Republican polls have Donald Trump with a small lead over Ted
:13:50. > :13:54.Cruz. In the Republic -- in the Democrat side it is neck and neck
:13:55. > :14:04.between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. People will go to meetings
:14:05. > :14:10.around this state and hear speeches. If you are public and you will sign
:14:11. > :14:13.a bit of paper. If you are a Democrat he will physically stand in
:14:14. > :14:19.a part of the room that denotes who you support. Then we start to get
:14:20. > :14:24.the figures and the results. That will be the moments when certain
:14:25. > :14:29.genes of certain candidates will come to an end. Others will think
:14:30. > :14:33.they can see a way ahead potentially to the nomination and potentially to
:14:34. > :14:40.the presidency. How important is what happens in
:14:41. > :14:44.Iowa? It is interesting. Politically it
:14:45. > :14:53.does not account for a lot of votes in terms of the national conventions
:14:54. > :14:56.of the parties. At its distinction, its significance is that it is
:14:57. > :15:02.first, it comes first in the nation, it gets a chance before anyone else
:15:03. > :15:07.to say, we do not like you, we like you, you can leave, you can stay.
:15:08. > :15:13.This is the powerful position that Iowa finds itself in and jealously
:15:14. > :15:17.guards that position in the primary season. It passed laws to make sure
:15:18. > :15:23.that it goes first in this entire process. That is the significance of
:15:24. > :15:26.it. After tonight what you will see, particularly because the Republican
:15:27. > :15:30.field is so crowded with 11 candidates in it, you will see
:15:31. > :15:35.winnowing down, people started to drop out, simply for the reason that
:15:36. > :15:39.it will not have enough money to carry on. The money will deserve
:15:40. > :15:42.them. That is only a finite amount of money and when you are splitting
:15:43. > :15:46.it that many ways something has to give. And then we will have a
:15:47. > :15:58.candidacy of several people. The president of the European
:15:59. > :16:06.council said good progress has been made on David Cameron's reform
:16:07. > :16:14.demands. If the two can reach an agreement on EU reform.
:16:15. > :16:17.And that's backed by all 28 EU leaders at their summit
:16:18. > :16:20.month - an in/out referendum could be held as early as June.
:16:21. > :16:22.So, are the rival campaigns in Scotland ready?
:16:23. > :16:24.The BBC's political correspondent, Glenn Campbell, explains.
:16:25. > :16:38.At this stage the in campaign is more developed than the out. The
:16:39. > :16:51.stronger in campaign has set up a Scottish team. Inevitably there will
:16:52. > :16:56.be some messages warning of the potential impact of moving out of
:16:57. > :17:03.the European Union but our aim is to be a non-party campaign, people
:17:04. > :17:07.based, talking up the benefits of EU membership for Scotland and the
:17:08. > :17:13.broader UK. Of the six foot coal parties with parliamentarians in
:17:14. > :17:18.Scotland's only one, Ukip, is campaigning for an out ports.
:17:19. > :17:25.Leaders of Labour, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, SNP, and
:17:26. > :17:35.the dreams, all once Scotland to stay within the EU.
:17:36. > :17:44.At the moment there Leave campaign in Scotland is embryonic but this
:17:45. > :17:49.myth that Scotland is in love with the European Union, it has been
:17:50. > :17:57.little debate on this. Who knows during a referendum which way this
:17:58. > :18:05.might go? Who is arguing the case? David Cockburn of Ukip. There is
:18:06. > :18:09.also a Labour Leave campaign fronted by Nigel Griffiths. And Jim Sillars
:18:10. > :18:22.says he will be on that side of the argument. Brian Monteith,
:18:23. > :18:27.conservative, has been involved in the Leave.EU campaign. There is also
:18:28. > :18:32.bought Leave. But neither of these have yet set up Scottish operations.
:18:33. > :18:34.Will Smith has starred in many memorable movies
:18:35. > :18:38.He plays the forensic pathologist Dr Bennet Omalu,
:18:39. > :18:40.who is called to examine the body of local hero, American
:18:41. > :18:46.He died of a heart attack at the age of 50 after years of showing
:18:47. > :18:51.Dr Omalu, discovers Webster's brain has something called CTE,
:18:52. > :18:57.a degenerative brain disease brought about by head knocks.
:18:58. > :19:09.You know what hastily does to people. Trained physicians who
:19:10. > :19:21.ignore science. I am not done. Mr Lee laughs. If you continue to deny
:19:22. > :19:31.my work the world will deny my work, but your men continue to die,
:19:32. > :19:36.families left in ruins. Tell the truth.
:19:37. > :19:38.The BBC's own John Beattie - a former Scotland Rugby
:19:39. > :19:40.international - researched the link between concussion and CTE
:19:41. > :19:50.He caught up with the film star ahead of the release next week.
:19:51. > :19:57.I know you said you watched your son play American football but you did
:19:58. > :20:05.not realise that knocks these people get. It is the strangest thing. We
:20:06. > :20:11.watch it. We see the hurts. You see someone go down. Then you applaud
:20:12. > :20:21.when they come back five minutes later. You think they are oche. Once
:20:22. > :20:24.I had the science explained to me it's becomes so obvious that you
:20:25. > :20:31.cannot imagine how you did not see it before. Their big part of why I
:20:32. > :20:37.wanted to make this film was as a parent I did not know, I sent my
:20:38. > :20:44.child out there, and at a minimum you have 20 so you can an informed
:20:45. > :20:51.decision. But do the governing bodies, the NFL, the Rugby unions,
:20:52. > :20:55.do they look after players? I have spent a lot of time with
:20:56. > :21:01.professional players in the last eight months since working on this.
:21:02. > :21:10.I was actually shocked at how many players were calling to see the film
:21:11. > :21:14.for information. That seemed strange to me that players were coming out
:21:15. > :21:22.of the film and had never had the science puts together in a way that
:21:23. > :21:29.was simple and comprehensive. That was surprising. Do you wonder that
:21:30. > :21:39.maybe the top collision sports, rugby, soccer, NFL, will ever
:21:40. > :21:46.change? If it was my head I think I have to be responsible for my head.
:21:47. > :21:51.Not your employer. Rate. My employer has to be responsible for whatever
:21:52. > :21:59.they want to be responsible for. But once I have the information, and it
:22:00. > :22:06.is not an easy decision, it has been excruciating for me in this process.
:22:07. > :22:14.I love acting and if I found out that acting could cause potential
:22:15. > :22:23.long-term brain damage that would be life destroying for me. I know that
:22:24. > :22:27.this is a difficult situation. It is a very inconvenient reality. This is
:22:28. > :22:32.how I make my living so I know what that is. So I want to be very
:22:33. > :22:36.careful in making those kind of judgments for other people. I want
:22:37. > :22:44.people to have the information. Where next for these sports? With
:22:45. > :22:52.the new science and the acceptance of it I do believe that there will
:22:53. > :23:01.be scientific advancement in the next five, ten years that will be
:23:02. > :23:05.extremely helpful. But for today, there is really nothing to do other
:23:06. > :23:10.than bang your head less. Here with me now to discuss that
:23:11. > :23:14.and some of the day's other news are two journalists,
:23:15. > :23:26.Liam Kirkaldy from Holyrood magazine We will go back to the Iowa
:23:27. > :23:33.caucuses. Voting begins soon in these important presidential
:23:34. > :23:39.primaries. Donald Trump, will he get the Republican nomination? You have
:23:40. > :23:43.two hope that this is the beginning of some serious campaigning and some
:23:44. > :23:49.serious politics. So far the primary campaigns just seem to be eccentric.
:23:50. > :23:54.Donald Trump is what would happen if Twitter came to life and started
:23:55. > :24:00.campaigning for US president. For the last 45 years no one who has
:24:01. > :24:06.come outside the top four at the Iowa caucus has then gone on to
:24:07. > :24:10.become the party 's presidential candidate. Hopefully tonight we will
:24:11. > :24:15.get rid of some of the fleet, separated from the chaff, and move
:24:16. > :24:20.forward with a more serious campaign. I was not overestimate the
:24:21. > :24:25.significance of the Iowa caucus. What about the chances of Donald
:24:26. > :24:28.Trump over all? Overall I do not think he will win. There is a chance
:24:29. > :24:35.he will win the contest that is going on just now. It is not a
:24:36. > :24:40.hugely influential part of the entire thing. In 2008 in 2012 the
:24:41. > :24:46.person to come out top in Iowa did not go on to win the nomination. The
:24:47. > :24:51.last Republican to go on to win the nomination that one in Iowa was
:24:52. > :24:54.George Bush in 2000. That suggests that Republican members there are
:24:55. > :24:58.not the most in tune with the rest of their party. The significant
:24:59. > :25:02.thing might be how it affects the other candidates. If you do badly in
:25:03. > :25:06.this that could be enough to ruin your chances. But I do not think
:25:07. > :25:14.winning it will be definitive. Let us move on. The new report from a
:25:15. > :25:18.think tank says everyone should receive a basic income from the
:25:19. > :25:23.state. ?100 for every adult. ?50 for every child. What do you make of
:25:24. > :25:29.this? It does not a new idea. Bertrand Russell was talking about
:25:30. > :25:35.that. The SNP wants to position itself as a socialist radical
:25:36. > :25:39.reforming party. This is the type of politics it should be discussing. In
:25:40. > :25:45.practice concerns about this type of policy and that it discourages you
:25:46. > :25:48.will from working. Yet they are suggesting it would remove
:25:49. > :25:53.disincentives to take more work, particularly part-time work, you do
:25:54. > :26:02.not agree? I think that is a general concern that is topped about when
:26:03. > :26:07.citizens income is mentioned. This was fermented in villages in India
:26:08. > :26:13.and entrepreneurship came out of it. It had a positive impact. One of the
:26:14. > :26:17.things I would want to address would be with this encourage businesses to
:26:18. > :26:24.reduce salaries. If everybody is having a basic income where is the
:26:25. > :26:29.incentive for business to pay fair salaries. It is a left-leaning idea
:26:30. > :26:34.from a think tank that is usually regarded as being on the right, more
:26:35. > :26:40.libertarian. Is this a sign that there is common ground? I would not
:26:41. > :26:46.call it a particularly left-wing policy. It is not a right-wing one.
:26:47. > :26:52.The Greens have supported. It is an all Dean policy. It is a difficult
:26:53. > :26:58.one to articulate to voters. Voters have heard for a long time there is
:26:59. > :27:04.not enough money. To then say that he wants to give ?100 2 million
:27:05. > :27:09.years, people that have money already, that is a difficult sell.
:27:10. > :27:14.The return of universality. A subject that has not been discussed
:27:15. > :27:19.recently. That is something that is in one sense left wing. It is
:27:20. > :27:23.universal in the sense of the way that the NHS was founded. At the
:27:24. > :27:28.same time it is not progressive. It is not based on the money of --
:27:29. > :27:33.based on the idea of taking money from the rich to give to the pure. A
:27:34. > :27:46.day of intense because she is and is regarding the EU in Downing Street.
:27:47. > :27:54.He said they had made good progress that that outstanding issues remain.
:27:55. > :27:57.What can we expect tomorrow? Something substantial? I do not
:27:58. > :28:00.think we can expect anything particularly substantial tomorrow.
:28:01. > :28:05.There has not been any particular events so far that David Cameron is
:28:06. > :28:17.going to be getting what he is wanting out of these stocks.
:28:18. > :28:24.Yesterday it was said they would be no compromise in individual freedoms
:28:25. > :28:29.which suggests a problem over David Cameron's requests on benefits and
:28:30. > :28:32.movement. David Cameron has been over egging how difficult the
:28:33. > :28:37.negotiations have been so that whatever happens tomorrow he is
:28:38. > :28:42.still in a position to look like he has achieved something for the
:28:43. > :28:45.Eurosceptics. How visual do you think the next few weeks and months
:28:46. > :28:52.will be for David Cameron at home and abroad? In particular over this
:28:53. > :28:56.deal that is key for him, the next 12 days if he wants to get a
:28:57. > :29:00.referendum by the summer. That is what he is going to be focusing on.
:29:01. > :29:04.A lot of other issues will go on the back burner so that he could try and
:29:05. > :29:11.get this deal through. I do not think it is a huge change. Thank
:29:12. > :29:23.you. Just before we leave you tonight and update on storm Henry.
:29:24. > :29:27.Storm Henry making for hazardous conditions through tonight and
:29:28. > :29:37.tomorrow morning. An Amber Beek appeared warning in force. Wind
:29:38. > :29:43.gusts of 70 mph, 80 mph, 90 mph. Potentially structural damage.
:29:44. > :29:48.Hazardous driving conditions. Frequent and heavy showers. Wintry
:29:49. > :29:56.over hills and he drowned. Longer spells of rain. -- hills and he
:29:57. > :30:08.drowned. Miserable conditions to start their day tomorrow. Delays and
:30:09. > :30:11.disruption tomorrow. It also be wintry on the hills. A gradual
:30:12. > :30:23.improvement as we go through the day. Still windy but we will lose
:30:24. > :30:24.those storm force gusts. Do take care out there tonight.
:30:25. > :30:30.Goodbye.