14/09/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


The latest political news, interviews and debate in Northern Ireland.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Welcome to the Sunday Politics, coming to you live from Edinburgh.


Terrorists who use the name Islamic State have carried out


their threat to murder the British aid worker, David Haines.


They released a video late last night, showing a masked man


beheading Mr Haines, who was taken captive in Syria 18 months ago.


The jihadist group have already beheaded two American journalists.


Now it's threatening the life of a second British hostage.


David Cameron described the murder as an act of pure evil.


As we speak he's chairing a meeting of the Cabinet's COBRA


President Obama said the US stood shoulder to shoulder


Alex Salmond says Scotland "stands on the cusp of history" as


he predicts a historic and substantial victory in


As the latest polls show the two sides neck and neck,


I'll ask Yes campaigner and socialist Tommy Sheridan about his


And after last week's last-minute interventions from Gordon Brown,


David Cameron, Ed Miliband and big business, I'll ask


pro-unionist George Galloway whether it's enough to win over waverers.


And on Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland:


Ian Paisley's legacy, we hear from friend and foe


on their dealings with the political giant through both


tumultuous and more peaceful times. step closer back to Parliament. Is


Late last night, as most folk were preparing for bed, news broke that


Islamic State extremists had carried out their threat to murder the


The group released a video, similar to the ones in which two American


journalists were decapitated, showing a masked man apparently


beheading Mr Haines who was taken captive in Syria last year.


The terrorist, who has a southern British accent,


also threatened the life of a second hostage from the UK.


Mr Haines is the third Westerner to be killed


His family have paid tribute to his humanitarian work; they say he


David Cameron described the murder as an act of pure evil, and said


his heart went out to Mr Haines? family, who had shown extraordinary


Mr Cameron went on to say, "We will do everything in our power


to hunt down these murderers and ensure they face justice,


Mr Haines was born in England and brought up in Scotland.


Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond condemned the killing on the Marr


Well, it's an act of unspeakable barbarism that we have seen.


Obviously our condolences go to the family members of David Haynes who


have borne this with such fortitude in recent months -- David


Alex Salmond was also asked whether he supported military action


Haines there is no reason to believe whatsoever that China or Russia or


any country will see their will to deal with this barbarism. There is a


will for effective, international, legal action but it must come in


that fashion, and I would urge that to be a consideration to develop a


collective response to what is a threat to humanity.


Our security correspondent Gordon Corera joins me now


Gordon, as we speak, the Cobra emergency meeting is meeting yet


again. It meets a lot these days. I would suggest that the options


facing this committee and Mr Cameron are pretty limited. That's right. I


think they are extremely limited. They have been all along in these


hostage situations. We know, for instance, that British government


policy is not to pay ransom is to kidnappers. Other Europeans states


are thought to have done so to get hostages released, and also not to


make substantive policy concessions to the groups, so while there might


be contact, there won't be a lot of options left. We know the US in the


past has looked at rescue missions and in July on operation to free the


hostages, landing at the oil facility in Syria but finding no one


there. If you look at the options, they are not great. That is the


difficult situation which Cobra will have been discussing the last hour.


Does this make it more likely, because it might have the direction


the government was going in any way, that we join with the Americans in


perhaps the regional allies in air strikes against Islamic State, not


just in Iraq, but also in Syria. We heard from President Obama outlining


his strategy against Islamic State last week when he talked about


building a coalition, about authorising air strikes. And


training troops. We are still waiting to hear what exact role the


UK will play in that. We know it will play a role because it has been


arming the fishmonger forces but the question is, will it actually


conduct military strikes in Iraq -- arming the passion are there. We


have not got a clear answer from government and that is something


where they are ours to discuss what was around the table. It's possible


we might learn some more today as a result of the Cobra meeting, but I


think the government will be wanting to not be seen to suddenly rushed to


a completely different policy as a result of one incident, however


terrible it is. Whether it hardens their reserve -- resolved to play


more active role in the coalition, that's possible, but we have to wait


see to get the detail. -- wait and see. What the whole country would


like to see would be British and American special forces going in and


getting these guys. I think that would unite the nation. But that is


very difficult, isn't it? It is. As you saw with a rescue mission a few


months ago, the problem is getting actionable intelligence on the


ground at a particular moment. The theory is that the group of


kidnappers are moving the hostages may be even every or few days, so


you need intelligence and quickly and then you need to be able to get


the team onto the ground into that time frame. That is clearly a


possibility and something they will be looking at, but it certainly


challenging, particularly when you have a group like this operating


within its own state, effectively, and knowing that other people are


looking very hard for it and doing everything they can to hide. Gordon,


thank you very much. Clegg dropped everything and headed


to Scotland when a poll last Sunday gave the YES vote its first ever


lead in this prolonged referendum If their reaction looked


like panic, that's because it was. Until last weekend,


though the polls had been narrowing, the consensus was still that NO


would carry the day. The new consensus is that


it's too close to call. If we look back at the beginning of


the year, public opinion in Scotland was fairly settled. The no campaign


had a commanding lead across the opinion polls, excluding the


undecided voters. At one point, at the end of last year, an average of


63% backed the no campaign and only 37% supported a yes vote. As we move


into 2014 and up to this week, you can see a clear trend emerging as


the lead for the no campaign gets narrower and narrower and the


average of the most recent polls has the contest hanging in the balance.


There was a poll a week ago that put the Yes campaign in the lead for the


first time, 51% against 49%, but that lead was not reflected in the


other polls last week. For polls were published last night, one by


Salvation, for the macro-2 campaign -- Better Together campaign, and


there was another that gave a one percentage point different. ICM have


the yes campaign back in the lead at 54% and the no campaign at 46%, but


their sample size was 705 Scottish adults, smaller than usual. Another


suggests that the contest remains on a knife edge with 49.4% against


50.6%. When fed into the poll of polls the figures average out with


yes at 49% and polls -- no at 51%. But some people think 18% are


undecided, and it is how they vote gets -- when they get to the polling


booths that could make all the difference.


campaigner and Respect Party MP, George Galloway.


Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Big business, big oil, big banks, the


Tories, the Orange order, all against Scottish independence. You


sure you are on right side? Yes, because the interests of working


people are in staying together. This is a troubled moment in a marriage,


a very long marriage, in which some good things and bad things have been


achieved together. And there is no doubt that the crockery is being


thrown around the house of the minute. But I believe that the


underlying interests of working people are on working on the


relationship rather than divorce. I have been divorced. It's a very


messy, acrimonious, bitter affair and it's particularly bad for the


children will stop that's why I am here. You talk about working people,


and particularly Scottish working people, they seem to have concluded


that the social democracy they want to create cannot now be done in a UK


context. Why should they not have a shot of going it alone? Because the


opposite will happen. Separation will cause a race to the bottom in


taxation. Alex Salmond has already announced he will cut the taxes on


companies, corporation tax, down to 3% hello whatever it is in the rest


of these islands. And business will only be attracted to come here,


country of 5 million people on if there is low regulation, low public


expenditure, low levels of taxation for them will stop you cannot have


Scandinavian social democracy on Texan levels of taxation. The


British government, as will be, the rest of the UK, they will race Alex


Salmond to the bottom. If he cuts it by three, they will cut it by four.


And so on. So whether some people cannot see it clearly yet or not,


the interests of the working people on both sides of the border would be


gravely damaged by separation. Let's take the interest of the working


people. As you know, as well as anyone, the coalition is in


fermenting both a series of cuts and reforms in welfare, and labour,


Westminster Labour, has only limited plans to reverse any of that. Surely


if you want to preserve the welfare state as it is, independence is the


way to do it. For the reasons I just explain, I don't believe that. But


Ed Miliband will be along in a minute. He will be along in May. The


polls indicate... They say he is only four or 5%, that is the


average. Like the referendum, the next general election could be nip


and tuck. I don't, myself, think that the time of David Cameron as


Prime Minister is for much longer. I think there will be a Labour


government in the spring and the Labour government in London and a


stronger Scottish Parliament, super Devo Max, that is now on the table.


That is the best arrangement of people in the country. But the


people of Scotland surely cannot base a decision on independence on


your feeling that Labour might win the next general election. It is my


feeling. When the Tories were beaten on the bedroom tax last week in the


house, it was written all over the faces of the government side not


only that they were headed for defeat, but probably a massive fishy


-- Fisher. I think the race to the bottom that I have proper size will


mean that the welfare state will be a distant memory quite soon. The


cuts and the run on the Scottish economy here in Edinburgh, the


financial services industry, that will be gravely damage. The Ministry


of Defence jobs in Scotland decimated, probably ended, more or


less. It will be a time of cuts and austerity, maybe super austerity in


an independent Scotland. You mentioned defence. What about


nuclear weapons? The Tories and Labour will keep them. You are


against them. Surely the only way to be rid of them in Scotland is by


independence. But you are not rid of them by telling them down the river.


The danger would be the same -- telling them down the river. The


danger would be the same. Nuclear radiation does not respect Alex


Salmond's national boundaries. They would be committed to immediately


joining NATO, which is bristling with nuclear weapons and is what --


involved in wars across the Atlantic. So anyone looking for a


peace option will have to elect a government in Britain as a whole


that will get rid of nuclear weapons and get out of military


entanglements. We are in one again now. I have been up the whole night,


till 5am, dealing with some of the consequences and implications of the


grave international matter that you opened the show with. David Haines


and the fate of the hostage still in their hands. There are many other


hostages as well. And there are many people dying who are neither British


nor American. I have, somehow, been drawn into this matter. And it


showed me, again, that the world is interdependent. It is absolutely


riven with division and hatred, and this is the worst possible time to


be opting out of the world to set up a small mini-state on the promises


of Alex Salmond of social democracy funded by Texan taxes. Let's, for


the sake of the next question, assume that everything you have told


us is true. Why is your side squandering a 20 point lead?


I will have a great deal to say about that, whatever the result.


This is very much a Scottish Labour project, is that not a condemnation


of Scottish Labour? It is potentially on its deathbed. The


country breaking up, the principal responsibility will be on them. And


the pitiful, absolutely pitiful job that has been made of defending a


300-year-old relationship in this island by the Scottish Labour


leadership is really terrible for me to behold, even though I'm no longer


one of them. I don't know how they are going to get out of this


deathbed. Do you agree that if this referendum is lost by your side, it


will be because traditional working-class Labour voters,


particularly in the west of Scotland, have abundant Labour and


decided to vote for independence? Without a doubt, the number of


Labour voters intending to vote yes is disturbingly high. Even just


months ago during the European Parliament elections, swathes of


people who didn't vote SNP will be voting yes on Thursday. That is a


grave squandering of a great legacy of Scottish Labour history, which


history will decree as unforgivable. If Labour is to get


out of its deathbed in Scotland, it will have to become Labour again.


Real Labour again. I am ready to help them with that. My goodness,


they need help with it. I wonder if it isn't just a failure of Labour in


Scotland. People all over Britain are increasingly fed up with the


Westminster system, but it is only the Scots who currently have the


chance to break free from it, so why shouldn't they? That is exactly


right. They see a parliament of expenses cheats led by Lord snooty


and the Bullingdon club elite, carrying through austerity for many


but not for themselves and they are repulsed by it. They need change,


but you can go backwards and call it change but it will be worse than the


situation you have now. A lot of Scottish people don't buy that. It


is a big gamble. If I were poised to put my family's life savings on the


roulette table in Las Vegas, my wife would not be scaremongering if she


pointed out the potential consequences if I'd lost. She would


not be negative by telling me that is my children's money I am risking.


If I jumped off this roof it would change my point of view, but it


would be worse than the point of view I have now. There is another


issue here because the Scots are being asked to gamble on the


Westminster parties, which they are already suspicious of, of delivering


home rule. Alistair Darling could not even tell me if Ed Balls had


signed off on more income tax powers for Scotland, so that is a gamble


for the Scots. I feel the British state has had such a shake out of


all this that they would be beyond idiots, they would be insane now to


risk all of this flaring up again because whatever happens, if we win


on Thursday, it is going to be narrowly. It will be a severe


fissure in Scotland. A great deal of unpleasantness that we are already


aware of. That could turn but we're still. It would be dicing with


death, playing with fire, to let Scottish people down after Thursday


if we narrowly win. If you narrowly win, and if there are moves to this


home rule Mr Brown has been talking about, England hasn't spoken yet on


this. Whilst England would probably not want to stop -- stop Scotland


getting this, they would say, what about us? It could delay the whole


procedure. It is necessary, you are right. England should have home


rule, and I screamed at Scottish Labour MPs going into the vote to


introduce tuition fees in England. I told them this was a constitutional


monstrosity, as well as a crime against young people in England. It


was risking everything. We are led by idiots. Our leaders are not James


Bonds, they are Austin powers. We need to change the leadership, not


rip up a 300-year-old marriage. Thank you.


It's been one of the longest and hardest fought political campaigns


in history, with Alex Salmond firing the starting gun on the referendum


Adam's been stitching together the key moments of the campaign.


It is the other thing drawing people to the Scottish parliament, the new


great tapestry of Scotland. It is the story of battles won and lost,


Scottish moments, British moments, famous Scots, and not so famous


Scots. There is even a panel dedicated to the rise of the SNP.


Alex Salmond's majority in the elections in 2011 made the


referendum inevitable. It became reality when he and David Cameron


did a deal in Edinburgh one year later. The Scottish Government set


out its plans for independence in this book, just a wish list to some,


a sacred text to others. This White Paper is the most detailed


improvements that any people have ever been offered in the world as a


basis for becoming an independent country. The no campaign, called


Better Together, united the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems under the


leadership of Alistair Darling. Then the Scottish people were bombarded


with two years of photo opportunities and a lot of


campaigning. For the no campaign, Jim Murphy went on tour but took a


break when he was egged and his events were often hijacked by yes


campaigners who were accused of being intimidating. In turn, they


accused the no campaign of using scare tactics. Things heated up when


the TV dinner -- during the TV debate. Fever pitch was reached one


week ago when one poll suggested the yes campaign was in the lead for the


first time. The three main Westminster leaders ditched PMQs to


head north. I think people can feel it is like a general election, that


you make a decision and five years later you can make another decision


if you are fed up with the Tories, give them a kick... This is totally


different. And Labour shelved not quite 100 MPs onto the train, Alex


Salmond took a helicopter instead. This is about the formation of the


NHS. A big theme of the yes campaign is that changes to the NHS in Linden


-- in England would lead to privatisation in Scotland. Alex


Salmond's plan to share the pound was trashed by big names. There were


other big question is, what would happen to military hardware like


Trident based on the Clyde? Would an independent Scotland be able to join


the EU? And how much oil was left underneath the North Sea?


This panel is about famous Scots, we have Annie Lennox, Stephen Hendry,


Sean Connery. I cannot see Gordon Brown. These are big changes we are


proposing to strengthen the Scottish parliament, but at the same time to


stay as part of the UK. A regular on the campaign, he was front and


centre when things got close, unveiling a timetable for more


devolution. People wondered whether Ed Miliband was able to reach the


parts of Scotland Labour leader should reach, and at Westminster


some Tories pondered whether David Cameron could stay as prime minister


if there was a yes vote. This tapestry is nonpartisan so it is a


good place to get away from it all but it is crystallising voters'


views. Look at what we have contributed to Great Britain, and I


am British and I hope to be staying British. This is what people from


Scotland have done, taken to the rest of the world in many cases and


I think I am going to vote yes. I am so inspired by it. It has certainly


inspired me to have a go at stitching. How long do you think it


would take to do the whole thing? I would say to put aside maybe 30


hours of stitching. Maybe by the time I am done, we will know more


about how the fabric of the nation might be changing.


And I've been joined by yes campaigner and convenor


of Scotland's Solidarity socialist party, Tommy Sheridan.


An economy dependent on oil, the Queen as head of state, membership


of the world 's premier nuclear alliance of capitalist nations - is


that the socialist Scotland you are fighting for? No, that is the SNP's


prospectus and they are entitled to put forward their vision, but it is


not mine or that of the majority of Scotland. We will find out in two


years. On Thursday we are not voting for a political party, we are voting


for our freedom as a country. That is why people are going to vote yes


on Thursday. A lot of people are voting for what you call freedom


because they think it will be more Scotland. You have already got free


prescriptions, no tuition fees, free care for the elderly. You might not


in future have that if public spending is overdependent on the


price of oil, over which you have no control. We don't have to worry


about one single resource, we already have 20% of the fishing


stock in Europe. We already have 25% of the wind, wave and solar power


generation. We, as an independent country, have huge resources,


natural resources but also people resources. We have five first-class


universities, food and beverages industry which is the envy of the


world. We have the ability to produce the resources on the


revenues that won't just maintain the health service and education but


it will develop health and education. I don't want to stand


still, I want to redistribute wealth. But all of the projections


of public spending for an independent Scotland show that to


keep spending at the current level you need a strong price of oil and


you are dependent on this commodity which goes up and down and sideways.


That is a gamble. I have got to laugh because I have been told the


most pessimistic is that in 40 years the oil is running out, panic


stations! If you were told by the BBC you could only guarantee


employment for the next 40 years you would be over the moon. I am talking


about in the next five. You need 50% of your revenues to come from oil to


continue spending and that is not a guarantee. Of course it is, the


minimum survival of the oil is 40 years. Please get your viewers to go


onto the Internet and look at the website called oilandgas.com. The


West Coast has 100 years of oil to be extracted. It hasn't been done


because in 1981 Michael Heseltine said we cannot extract the oil


because we have Trident going up and down there. Let's get rid of Trident


and extract the oil. You are a trot right, why have you failed to learn


his famous dictum, socialism in one country is impossible. Revolutions


and change are not just single event. What will happen here on


Thursday is a democratic revolution. The people are fed up of being


patronised and lied to by this mob in Westminster who have used and


abused us for far too long. The smaller people now have a voice.


What about socialism in one country? Mr Trotsky warned you


against that. The no campaign represents the past. The yes


campaign represents the future. That is the truth of the matter. What we


are going to do in an independent Scotland is tackle inequality and a


scourge of low pay. If we vote no on Thursday, there will be more low pay


on Friday, more poverty and food banks on Friday. I'm not going to be


lectured by these big banks, you vote less -- yes and we will leave


the country! The food banks will be the ones closing. If you got your


way, for the type of Scotland you would like to see, state control of


business, nationalisation of the Manx, the roads to Carlisle will be


clogged with people Yes, hoping to come into Scotland,


because in their hearts, the Scottish people know that England


want to see the people having the bottle. The working class people in


Liverpool, Newcastle, outside of London, they are saying good on the


jocks that are taking on big business. When we are independent


and investing in social housing, the people of England will say, we can


do that as well, and they will rediscover the radical tradition. In


wanting to build socialism in one country, it really means you are


fighting for the few, rather than the many. You are bailing out of the


socialist Battle for Britain. You think it will be easier to make it


work. Think globally, act locally and we will build socialism in


Scotland but I wanted across the world. I won my brothers and sisters


in England and Wales to be encouraged by what we do so they can


reject the Westminster consensus as well -- I want. We had the three


Stooges coming up to London, three millionaires united on one thing,


austerity. Doesn't matter whether Ed Miliband wins the next election, he


said he would stick to the story spending cuts. Why vote for Ed


Miliband? You wouldn't trust him to run a bath, not a country. Let's see


if this is realistic, this great socialist vision. At the last


Scottish election, the Socialist party got 8000 votes. The


Conservatives got 30 times more votes. Where is the appetite in


Scotland for your Marxist ideology question we might not win it. But do


you know what, see in two years time. See when we have the Scottish


general election. You won't -- you are saying you might win and you


went to the Holyrood election and got 8000 Pope -- votes. The SNP won


a democratic election and then won the 2011 election and you know why


they won? Because they picked up the clothes that the Labour Party has


thrown away. They picked up the close of social democracy and


protecting the health service was -- service. There are people in the SNP


who believe in public ownership and people in the SNP who believe in the


NHS should be written into a constitution as never for sale


people in the the SNP that think the Royal mail should return to public


ownership. That is there in black and white. Do you agree with George


Galloway that this is potentially a crisis for Scottish Labour? Scottish


Labour is finished. They are absolutely finished. George is right


in that. Scottish Labour is finished. The irony of ironies is,


Labour in Scotland has more chance of recovery in an independent


Scotland that they have in a no vote. Labour in Scotland in an


independent country will have to rediscover the traditions of Keir


Hardie, the ideas of Jimmy Maxon, because right now, they are to the


right of the SNP as a political party. I understand the socialist


vision, but it is where the appetite is. And you look at the independence


people in Scotland. One of your colleagues, Brian Souter, a man who


fought against the appeal -- repeal of homosexual rights in Scotland.


Another of your allies would seem to be Rupert Murdoch, the man who


engineered your downfall. You say he engineered your downfall, but I'm


still here and his newspaper has closed. Whether it Rupert Murdoch,


Brian Souter, or any other millionaire supporting independence,


I couldn't care less. This boat on Thursday is not about millionaires,


it is about the millions. -- this vote. We will not be abused any


young -- longer. Would you rather not have their support? I couldn't


care about the support. You know who is supporting the union. It is the


unions of the big businesses, the BNP, UKIP, they are the ones who


support it. You are giving me a stray that has wandered into the


campaign and are you seriously going to argue with me that the


establishment isn't united to try and save the union? That is what


they are trying to be. The BBC, you have been a disgrace in your


coverage of the campaign. Not you personally. You don't have editorial


control. The BBC coverage, generally, has been a disgrace and


the people. Oil and gas, go and look at that, why is that not feature.


Why is the idea of 100 years of oil not featured in the campaign.


Because the BBC does not want to see it. Are you getting in your excuses


if you lose? You better be kidding. Is this the face of somebody looking


to lose. We are going to win, 60/40. Absolutely. There is a momentum that


you guys are not seeing on the working-class housing estates.


Working class people are fed up being taken for granted fed up with


the lives of people dragging us into tax cuts, bedroom tax for the poor.


They will have power on Thursday, and they will use it and vote for


freedom. Are you happy with the way the BBC has treated you today? So


far, yes. I have still not been offered a Coffey, but that might


happen. That is an obvious example of our bias. Tommy, we will speak to


you later with George Galloway. Hello,


and welcome to Sunday Politics. Courageous, controversial,


a colossus, uncompromising... Just some


of the terms used to describe In this extended edition


of the programme, I'll be assessing his career with former colleagues


and political opponents. As the Orange Order appeals to


Scottish voters not to go it alone, we get the latest news


on the referendum campaign. And with their thoughts,


the Irish News columnist Brian Feeney and Ballymena Guardian


editor, Jim Flanagan. He was a defining, dividing figure


in Northern Ireland's history and that legacy is writ large


across the newspaper headlines this weekend as we look back at


the life and legacy of Ian Paisley. The former DUP leader who died


on Friday will be buried It will mark the end


of a remarkable journey from the defiance and protest


of the firebrand preacher to the compromise and accommodation of the


First Minister who shared power with Where are you from?


The BBC. What BBC? The BBC. If this is the way they want to play yet we


declare our attention is that we will organise massive


demonstrations. A great mentor and a great friend,


the words of Edwin Poots paying The Health Minister's father stood


alongside Dr Paisley in 1969 as a Protestant Unionist candidate


and it was a relationship that For you this is personal


and political. We'll talk about the political


in a moment but your family and How difficult have the past few


days been for you personally? well, we knew him quite well and I


think things were coming to an end. It has been a sad time for the


Paisley family who have been very close to Ian Paisley through the


years despite his very public life, they have had a very personal


relationship. The relationship that Italy between him and his wife


Eileen was one that we could all look to. The love between them


whatsoever that and it was something we could all aspire to. Politically


we all know that he went on a remarkable journey in the latter


days of his career. What's your family entirely comfortable with


that? We have stood with Ian Paisley from right back in the late 1960s


until he passed away and we absolutely stood with him all of the


way. There was no issue there. Ian Paisley has been quite wrongly


described over the years. He was a lot more pragmatic than people give


him credit for. In 1981 when the Atkins talks took place in the


Ulster Unionist did not take part and then later the SDLP opted out


and then in further talks Peter Robinson did some negotiations and


went back to Ian Paisley and sold it to him. The reality is that over the


period of the 1980s and into the 1990s it was not Ian Paisley that


was the blockage about moving forward. He always stood against


compromise. There was no question of that. He said in one sermon that if


you compromise God will curse you but he pulled off the most


remarkable compromise that this state has ever seen, how did he do


that? I think if you are mixing the religious and the political, on the


religious side of things he did not compromise and that is very clear.


His preaching was uncompromising that salvation was through the blood


of Jesus Christ alone and he had no truck with those who sought to do


things by work so he was on compromising in his preaching. In


his politics you always have to recognise that you have to have a


degree of pragmatism and their work principles that could not be


compromised on one could not be compromised was that Sinn Fein had


to accept the rule of law and except the police. Everybody said that


would never happen and Ian Paisley made it happen. He destroyed other


Unionist leaders who were looking for pragmatic solutions to problems


in the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and 1990s and he was dead fast Lee


opposed to that. He saw a whole list of Ulster Unionist leaders including


David Trimble because they were prepared to compromise. You say he


was pragmatic. He was a man of his time. He was a contradiction and an


enigma! Very much so. In the 1970s the IRA killed many people. In 1972


and 1973 300 or 400 people were getting killed in those years. They


were awful full time that politics was not going to be the solution at


that period. There had to be a bringing the IRA to heal in


particular and the security forces had a job to do and there would


never be a political settlement that the IRA would accept so it was


almost impossible for any unionist to accept a settlement that would


allow the IRA to continue to engage. There are those who feel he


caused a lot of hurt and indeed fanned the flames during the darkest


days of the trouble is, do you access to that? No. Why not? There


is evidence to suggest that is the case. There is also evidence to


suggest something different. I was a man growing up during the troubles


and I would have been very angry at what was seeing on the television


screens and I was angry about hearing men in the Ulster defence


Regiment being killed and police officers being killed on our


streets. It was largely through Ian Paisley that young men like me did


not end up in paramilitary organisations. We saw a strong


leader who would fight our case politically. There is the


contradiction because others went down the paramilitary road because


they said they did it because of what Ian Paisley said. Yesterday a


woman in the Times said many who ended up in prison ruefully pointed


to Ian Paisley as their recruiting Sergeant. And yet I was the


opposite, I saw him as a strong voice in politics and I did not need


to engage in some fight back. If he had given the rubber-stamp to map --


paramilitaries and he had given the rubber stamp to go out and take the


IRA on in any means... But he flirted with the paramilitaries. His


critics called him the grand old Duke of York. By what ever means,


many of us who would have ended up in Paola military organisations did


not because of him. But some people did and that is part of the tragedy


of Northern Ireland. Many of those would have ended up in paramilitary


organisations despite of Ian Paisley. What you think of people


who chose to forget his past actions and focus only on the last few years


of his career where he was in government and he befriended Martin


McGuinness and went through his chuckle Brothers base. I find him a


more attractive figure in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s. He was strong,


resolute and he was forceful. His pragmatism, which I indicated was


already existing in those years when others have just whitewashed that


and said he was a blockage when it was actually the Ulster Unionists


and John Hume who were the biggest blockage. If you talk to senior


civil servants they will tell you that John Hume was more of a


blockage to progress than Ian Paisley ever was. I am just stating


a fact. The negotiations took place and they could not do it. Let me ask


you about the way in which he ended his career, seemingly isolated,


divorced from the party he founded and the church that he founded. You


are free Presbyterians and a route leading member of the DUP, does it


sad anew that he was seemingly ostracised from the organisations in


the final stages of his life? -- sadden you. That is not quite


correct. He was invited to our annual dinner every year and he


attended every year. He spoke each year and we had great times


together. Look out what he said all stop I was at a funeral yesterday in


a free Presbyterian Church and the amount of affection that existed for


Ian Paisley there was absolutely phenomenal. Did exist the other way


around? Was the affection from him and his family for the church? His


family made the announcement and the party knew nothing about his death


until the media broadcast the news. That is quite right that the family


were the people who were with him at his death. He had a private life as


well and they were entitled to a private life. His family were very


close and a lot of us are very close to that family and it will always be


the case. In one sentence, what should be his lasting legacy? His


lasting legacy was a strong man who stood for the Ulster people, who saw


there was a deal to be done and had the courage to do it. Thank you very


much for joining us. Let's hear the thoughts


of my two guests of the day, Brian Feeney, a strongman who, at


the end of the day, did the deal. That is what Edwin Poots says his


legacy should be. Might that be part of his legacy? Yes, it is. If it had


not been for Ian Paisley there would not have been a deal because nobody


else could have carried the DUP with him and made that deal. The reason


for that was that Ian Paisley, throughout the whole of his career,


had concentrated on attacking the IRA and the Catholic church and


merging them together in some of his attacks. But really what his target


was was the Ulster Unionists party. The fact that some people say he


woke up every morning trying to work out what damage he could do to the


Ulster Unionists because he wanted to be top dog. He would not make a


deal until he was in a position to be top dog and that happened after


he became the leader of the largest party in 2003. That unsettled so


many of the people that made him top dog. Of course it did. He led them


to believe he would never compromise. The trouble with the


bridges that it goes over to the other side and all of the phrases


that he said, he spent his whole career attacking Ulster Unionist


leaders. As you mentioned, right from O'Neill and the whole way


through until David Trimble and then he settled for much the same as


David Trimble except you may note that one of the differences in the


St Andrews agreement was that the deal was that the First Minister


would be the leader of the largest party, not elected on a cross


community basis, because obviously he believed he would be the leader


of the largest party and it never occurred to him that it might be


Sinn Fein. North Antrim was his constituency for many decades and


Ballymena was at the heart of his power base. How will people there


come to terms with this news, his poor support? They will remember him


very fondly for all the work you did for that constituency. He took his


peerage title from the area. The most insightful interview I did with


him was actually at Stormont on the eve of his standing down as an MP


and he was in a reflective mood at that point. He had been


confrontational through his life and he was not everybody's cup of tea,


the firebrand of politics, what he said was that he had a lot to be


confrontational about in those days, not least a campaign by


terrorists to destroy Northern Ireland. He was very critical of the


intentions of the British government has well. It is the contradictions


and be enigmas that a lot of people are struggling to get their heads


around. It is not an enigma a contradiction. He is driven by


blazing ambition. He wanted us to be the leader of the Ulster Protestant


unionists. When he talks about the Ulster people, he talks about the


Protestant people of Ulster. When Edwin Poots says it is pragmatic, is


that in a nutshell? Ian Paisley in the early 1970s had visited Dublin


to see if there was any deal that could be done. He was even talking


in terms of the possibility of redesigning the constitution in


Northern Ireland, he was open to discussion. He was not in a position


to deliver anything until after 2003. He was an instinctive


politician and some of the mistakes he made in his career would have


been because he acted on gut instinct. That instinct got him most


of the right decisions as well. Would he have accepted that he made


mistakes and he was infallible? -- fallible. He has excepted that over


and over again. The truth is that we are in a better place in Northern


Ireland because we had someone strong to stand up to republicanism


-- republicanism over the years but he still had the courage to ensure


there was a deal to have peace in Northern Ireland. Ultimately his


career will be defined by the deal he did in Sinn Fein. Edwin Poots,


thank you very much indeed and we will hear from our guests later in


the programme. Among those who had serious


disagreements with Ian Paisley over the years were


direct rule Ministers. However, despite sometimes heated


disputes, many retained a degree of respect and even affection


for the former DUP leader. Among them one of Mrs Thatcher's


Secretaries of State, Peter Brooke. Our Political Reporter Stephen


Walker spoke to Baron Brooke When US Secretary of State, you


would have had had lots of dealings with Ian Paisley? I was asked by the


press how we could square the circle in terms of getting into talks when


it looked as though there was no way in which the circle could be


squared. And I used to reply then that politics is about human beings


and human beings, you know, they come in all shapes and sizes and


they have also is of different kinds of family. But the family is


important. And just as I think that those who are involved in Sinn Fein


IRA will have had families and will have wondered how long it was all


going to go on for their families, I was quite clear that, as a


grandfather, Ian Paisley was conscious of the future, and that in


the ultimate analysis, he did not want his descendants to go through


the same experiences or see the province go through the same


experiences that they before. And I was confident that when push came to


shove, he would in fact to make the right decisions. And there was a


moment, obviously, in his thinking when he decided, I am going to have


to share power with Sinn Fein? I've never talked to him about it but


that would appear to need to be the case. How do you think history will


judge Ian Paisley? Well, as I say, human beings and politicians come in


all shapes and sizes. And he believed very strongly in his


various causes. And I did periodically ask him to explain the


theology of particular parables. He was concerned about what was my own


doctrinal ancestry, and, in a sense, off duty we had some very, very good


conversations and I think he, in the ultimate analysis, exercised his


authority and responsibility well. Did you like Ian Paisley? I


personally liked him considerably. Did you find there were two Ian


Paisleys? One in private and one in public? Well, I'm very conscious


that when he was saying rude things about me, you were saying them for


his own political reasons! In any of the meetings you had with Ian


Paisley, where tempers ever frayed? I don't... I genuinely don't think


that. And I asked him once, was there ever an occasion when you


felt, I said to him, I had let you down? You know, and had deceived you


in any way? And he said, no. There are perhaps one or two occasions


when I had to give you the benefit of the doubt but, in principle, you


always behaved as you said you would. And you think history will be


kind to him? Yes, I do. The former Secretary of State Peter Brooke.


Joining me now are the former Alliance Party leader


and past Speaker of the Assembly, Lord Alderdice, and from Dublin,


the former MP, TD and civil rights leader Austin Currie.


You are both very welcome to the programme. Lord Alderdice, how will


you remember him? He could be charming and funny. The jokes are


almost always on somebody else rather than himself! And actually


was not bit of a court person to work with on a one-to-one basis in a


meeting. But the other side of it, which is more important, is that


effectively started out to undermine liberalism within the Protestant


community, particularly within the Presbyterian Church, and liberalism


within unionism, the people who wanted to move to and accommodation


with nationalism on the island. And he targeted both of those over the


years and with a very personal and sometimes nasty level. And in many


ways he was successful at destroying those elements of liberalism.


Ironically, of course, he came to realise that there was no future in


the approach he was taking, and the result wasn't to produce a


fundamentalist Protestantism of the kind he wanted but to see young


people leaving old churches, and it did not lead to the kind of them he


wanted, it let him going into government not with just


nationalists but with the IRA. -- the kind of unionism. So in the end


he got something even worse than he would have wanted and many of his


forebears realise the route he had taken was a disastrous mistake for


them and the country. Austin Currie, I wonder, do you think the actions


of Ian Paisley in latter years in anyway make up for some of what he


was involved with in some of his earlier days? He was vehemently


opposed to the civil rights movement and you were one of the leading


lights of that back in the 60s. Compromise certainly was not in his


vocabulary at that time. Well, certainly they were a very close


family and I wish to express my sincere sympathy to the family. I am


reluctant to speak ill of the dead. But I have to say that the comments


on Ian Paisley since his death have once again illustrated a rewriting


of Irish history which has been going on for some time. I knew Ian


Paisley very well. He and I were members of the 69 Stormont


Parliament. There were only 52 of us so we really got to know each other


very well. And in the mid-60s, I described Paisley as a bigoted


hangover from the 17th century. I believe that then and I have had


little reason to change my mind despite the most recent, almost


deathbed conversion. But Paisley was one who attacked your religion, he


talked about Catholics reading like rabbits, and multiplying like


vermin. -- breeding like rabbits. He attacked the leadership of not only


the Catholic Church but the Protestant churches. If the words


hate crime had been valid at that particular time, there's no doubt


Paisley would have been guilty of hate crime. Austin, you also said in


a statement released at the weekend, so let me just quote it, you said,


Paisley and the Provos share responsibility for the outbreak and


the intensity and outbreak of The Troubles. It is difficult to


separate their degrees of responsibility. Is that absolutely


fair? Yes, I think it is. And the reaction of certain Provos who have


talked about their love for Paisley indicates that they were involved in


parallel activity. I am reminded and have been reminded of O'Connell, who


was the former IRA chief of staff, and at a time when leading members


of the SDLP were described as legitimate targets, he was asked


whether Paisley should be shot, and he said no, because he was worth


dozens of recruiting sergeants for the Republican movement. On the


political front, I had two major disappointments with him. One, those


of us who were involved at the start of the civil rights movement


believed that we could attract Protestant support because


working-class Protestants were much the same position as working-class


Catholics. -- were in much the same decision. He ruined that possibility


of winning over that support. And then, of course, the power-sharing


executive, which, he, along with the IRA, was responsible for bringing


down, you do seem to realise it when he brought down in 1974 was almost


exactly the same thing he was claiming to support as chief


executive. -- he did not seem to realise. You were nodding


enthusiastically on that last point. Is that a key thing to understand in


the career of Ian Paisley? It is crucial to understand. Ian Stokes


these things up before there was IRA violence, long before. And even on


the political side, he was damaging and destroying those who wanted a


more creative approach to their faith. And there was a very


unpleasant personal attack which damaged people not just


professionally but personally. And they had lasting impact. I say that


as a Presbyterians. He was very opposed to the Presbyterian Church


and its move towards humanism. Exactly. Any openness to discussion


and engagement were bitterly attacked. And that is not to say


that he couldn't be a very pleasant companion and chat and all of those


kinds of things. My father knew him bury well, my uncle knew him very


well. I knew his background in Ballymena very well. -- knew him


very well. But because of his influence, use tipped up the trouble


and then later realised it did not bring the outcome that he sought and


turned turtle. -- he stoked up the trouble. What do you think things


would look like over the last 40 years of Ian Paisley had not been


part of that story? I cannot tell you what way it would have been but


I can say this. There were many leading people in the churches and


impolitic who were trying to move gradually towards the kind of


accommodation we are struggling to settle into now. -- in politics. And


his extraordinary ability and his extraordinary negative ability is


what destroyed those efforts and led to the loss of many lives are much


misery which we now, and he and his slate of years, found himself trying


to reconstruct. -- and he in his later years. So how will history


judge him for going into government with Martin McGuinness? We cannot


say. For the moment it is positive and later people will look at it and


they might not be as kind as my colleague Sir Peter Brooks suggests.


Thank you very much indeed for joining us.


To Scotland now, and the referendum campaign,


On Thursday, four million voters in Scotland will


decide either to become independent or to stay part of the UK.


Yesterday in Edinburgh, Members of the Grand Orange Lodge


of Scotland paraded along the Royal Mile in the centre of


Among them, Orange Order members and bands from Northern Ireland.


Police estimated the turnout at around 15,000 in total,


and although the marchers were supporting a no vote, the official


Better Together campaign had refused to publicly support the event.


There have been warnings of possible economic catastrophe for Scotland if


it votes to go it alone, with comparisons to the Great


Depression, and financial institutions saying they will


relocate to London. But what about here? What might it mean for public


spending? These are the thoughts of John Campbell. The trade we do with


Scotland is substantial. Manufacturing is thought to be worth


about ?700 million a year. Some of our biggest construction firms do a


huge amount of business there. One has just started building an


extension to Tony Blair's old school in Edinburgh. An independent


Scotland could make all that trade a little trickier. For example, what


impact will different tax and regulatory systems have? And it is


still far from certain what currency will be used. Those factors would


not make things easier but we should not overstate them either. Tax on


currency things many firms deal with everyone -- everyday when they deal


cross-border into the Republic. And, remember, an independent Scotland


will have to be an open trading economy with as few barriers as


possible. But the real indications are around our public finances. At


the moment, public spending and distribution across different parts


of the UK is worked out using the Barnett formula. We do well under


that. If Scotland leaves, the whole system will have to change. It takes


a lot of optimism to imagine Stormont will get a better deal. And


with Scotland being offered more tax and spending powers if they reject


independence, that, too, will call into question the financial motion


ship between Westminster and other nations. -- the financial


relationship. Would our politicians be prepared to raise taxes to give


the health service more would they cut taxes and therefore services in


an attempt to spark entrepreneurial activity? These new responsibilities


may be coming with a Stormont wants them or not. John Campbell with his


thoughts on the possible economic consequences for us of Scottish


independence. New polls suggesting this weekend that the no vote will


carry the day but the campaign appears to have taken a nasty turn,


with warnings and threats coming from also hides. Let's get more from


Gerry Braiden from the Glasgow Herald. Only one of the polls, as I


understand it, has the yes vote in the lead, and I think I read it


saying it was commissioned by the Yes campaign. Today, it has yes on


54 compared to the no on 46. Another has yes on 51 and no on 49. It seems


a long time since the Better Together campaign. Labour was saying


they were expecting a vote of somewhere around 70-30 to put this


to bed. If you ask Better Together campaign now where they would take a


vote of 50.4%, they would bite your hand off for it! The poles are more


than snapshots in this campaign. They have been a catalyst. -- the


opinion polls. The reason why the UK political establishment and the


media are in Scotland and the reason the markets are getting jittery and


the reason the Yes campaign has the mental and confidence is all of


this. -- the momentum. There are no two ways about it. UK constitutional


position is on a knife edge as it has been since 1921, 22. The Better


Together campaign had a shock last week with the YouGov poll which put


the yes vote ahead. You saying it is not a given and it be as tight as


50.1%? I have seen comments that Alistair


Darling is confident of a win for his campaign. I buy into the theory


of a silent majority, the people that do not give that much of a damn


about the constitutional position of the United Kingdom will come out on


the day and they will vote for the No campaign. I am a bit less


confident that this morning than I was before. What about these


undecided people? We have the race on both sides to appeal to the


undecideds and I was wondering if people are trying to steal for the


other side, Labour voters who might vote for the No campaign they are


trying to get them over to vote for the Yes campaign and then they can


come back to Labour. There is apparently poaching and counter


poaching. The number of undecided people, and you will hear anything


from 5% to 15%, is a story in itself. It is an indication that


there are people who are probably not content with the constitutional


arrangements that we have at the moment and they might think they are


in favour of an independent Scotland but they have a bit of an issue with


it. You are right that the campaign does seem to be before the Labour --


does seem to be for the Labour vote. A recent poll says that in the last


month one third of people have been swayed by what they are hearing from


the Yes campaign but only 7% from the No campaign. That is


fascinating. Whatever happens it is clear it will be tight, as you have


it -- suggested and we now expect. When people in Scotland wake up on


Friday morning, whatever the result has been, is it a given that


Scotland is a divided nation? There is a real tangible political frisson


in coffee shops and buses and school playgrounds and everywhere. I do not


think Scotland will ever be the same again. There is this tangible desire


for political change that even Ed Miliband is talking about in the


Observer today that things can never go back to the way they these are


much promised a devolved powers. What happens on Friday is all down


to what the vote delivers. Certainly for the foreseeable future, given


the scenario is racking up front of us and the rise of UKIP, there is


certainly going to be a polarisation in the body politic in Scotland


unlike anything we have seen in -- since the 1980s.


We will now get the final comments from my studio guests. You are


political so I imagine you are following it closely. Should we


care? My daughter works in Glasgow so I have been following it closely.


It has become polarised debate with both sides making extravagant


claims. The Better Together camp warning the dangers and putting the


frighteners on people, my own opinion is that they do not know


group may be inclined to vote against it because you are inclined


to do that if you are not sure. I think the No campaign will shade


it. The evidence from places like Quebec is that as the last week


happens people go to be safe and go for the No campaign. It is very


divisive. The reaction of the No campaign in the last week has been


appalling. Peter Hitchens this morning has said the only thing they


haven't threatened the yes people with his exploding Agassiz. They


have done everything possible to try and scare the yes people with his


exploding Agassiz. They have done everything possible to try and scare


them and lot of changes they vote for the Yes campaign because it will


be like the Irish free State in 1922 who had the pound and coins and


notes and everything. We are going to have an intriguing time watching


the situation unfold. Thank you very much indeed.


everyone in the team for now, bye bye.


Download Subtitles