:00:00. > :00:00.game in the rugby premiership season. And, we covered the Italian
:00:00. > :00:30.Grand Prix. James Millar of the Sunday Post is
:00:31. > :00:34.with us, and... I thought that was going to appear miraculously
:00:35. > :00:39.quickly. How would it lets you down! Jane Freeman from the women
:00:40. > :00:53.for independence campaign. I'm glad you haven't left, Jean. Let's have a
:00:54. > :00:56.look at the front pages. The Daily Mail leads with a story claiming
:00:57. > :00:59.some of our biggest banks have been intimidating their customers. Nato
:01:00. > :01:04.leaders gaze at a fly past on the front of the Independent, the
:01:05. > :01:14.Financial Times has the same picture, but talks about the
:01:15. > :01:16.Scottish referendum. The Daily Telegraph says that Britain could
:01:17. > :01:19.become involved in a three`year battle with Islamist militants.
:01:20. > :01:22.Five`year`old Ashya King dominates the front page of the Guardian. He
:01:23. > :01:26.is now heading to Prague for treatment, but some British doctors
:01:27. > :01:32.are critical of the technique is to receive. The Daily Express says
:01:33. > :01:37.there is outrage at claims that police are dropping prosecutions.
:01:38. > :01:42.The Times carries a picture of the US president on his trip to
:01:43. > :01:45.Stonehenge. And, Scotsman leads with a headline that Nato is casting
:01:46. > :01:49.doubt over possible Scottish membership of the alliance because
:01:50. > :01:55.SNP defence spending plans for short of expectations. We will begin with
:01:56. > :02:06.the Times, and its take on this pledge by the west to smash ISIS,
:02:07. > :02:14.now really known as Islamic State `` West. Britain has signed up to this
:02:15. > :02:18.coalition led by the US. That is even if the campaign lasts for three
:02:19. > :02:21.years. We are edging closer and closer to military intervention.
:02:22. > :02:32.Yes. The three years figure is intriguing, differs according to the
:02:33. > :02:37.PM, we are signed up. Then what? Do we give up after three years? It
:02:38. > :02:43.smacks a little bit of, it will all be over by Christmas. We went into
:02:44. > :02:48.Iraq and Afghanistan, that wasn't going to take long either. There
:02:49. > :02:55.needs to be a commitment of us to do something, because we have been
:02:56. > :02:58.hearing things coming out of the Islamic State that are clearly
:02:59. > :03:01.awful, and people would like to see something done about it. That
:03:02. > :03:04.something might be airstrikes, might be drones, but the reluctance is
:03:05. > :03:09.always that phrase, boots on the ground, isn't it? Yes, it is. What
:03:10. > :03:18.is interesting about this story is how more clearly the combative tone
:03:19. > :03:23.of the language is emerging. Until now, there has been some talk, but
:03:24. > :03:27.the time seems to have changed, and yet we are still not clear what the
:03:28. > :03:37.timetable might be, or what the plan is. I know that it says, and the UK
:03:38. > :03:43.PM and the US President are quoted as saying that we will strike out
:03:44. > :03:49.against IS and we will smash them, but it is not clear to me what the
:03:50. > :03:55.plan is. As James says, what happens if after three years it is not
:03:56. > :04:03.sorted? One of the great criticisms on Iraq was that there was no exit
:04:04. > :04:08.plan. I think this begs more questions really than it answers,
:04:09. > :04:11.albeit that there might have been a growing feeling that a number of
:04:12. > :04:15.things were happening in the world, and what was Nato doing about it,
:04:16. > :04:19.what was the point of Nato? But at this point, just being combative in
:04:20. > :04:25.your language, and I'm noticing one or two things, I really don't think
:04:26. > :04:29.that will satisfy people. The other thing that strikes me, is that I'm
:04:30. > :04:34.not sure that the public is quite as alert to what is happening, and
:04:35. > :04:40.quite as anxious about it as the political leaders are. That does not
:04:41. > :04:46.mean that the public are right, and the leaders are wrong. I just think
:04:47. > :04:51.a bit of catch`up needs to go on, which is similar to where we were on
:04:52. > :04:57.Iraq. Let's move on to the Scotsman. They say that the SNP plans fall
:04:58. > :05:02.short on defence spending. I don't know if you have seen this in its
:05:03. > :05:16.entirety. It is another warning from another body that no doubt Scotland
:05:17. > :05:21.would want to be part of, isn't it ? It is interesting, the vote in under
:05:22. > :05:26.two weeks is about whether or not Scotland becomes independent. The
:05:27. > :05:33.SNP would hope they were, wouldn't they? I'm sure they would, and I'm
:05:34. > :05:41.sure the planned figure for spending on defence is exactly the same as
:05:42. > :05:44.Denmark's, and Nato don't seem to have a problem there. I think what
:05:45. > :05:50.may have happened here, and it would be a huge surprise, is that somebody
:05:51. > :05:54.in Nato has said, I'm not sure that is enough money, and that has said
:05:55. > :05:59.there might not get in. The former Ambassador to Nato has said that she
:06:00. > :06:05.sees no problem, and Scotland would be welcome. We are going around this
:06:06. > :06:11.circle again, like we did on Europe and the currency, but actually, this
:06:12. > :06:17.Nato story doesn't stack up. If you step back and look at it coolly. On
:06:18. > :06:20.social media, David Henry has answered the call for comments on
:06:21. > :06:25.Twitter. He says Scotland will have its own Defence Force based in
:06:26. > :06:31.Scotland, new coastal ships, and more jobs will be created building
:06:32. > :06:37.them. It is good that he knows. It is all very well saying this is
:06:38. > :06:42.conflating SNP policy with Scotland and independence, but that is what
:06:43. > :06:46.happens in the white paper. The white paper produced by the SNP
:06:47. > :06:51.Scottish government includes plans for defence spending, which would be
:06:52. > :06:58.up to the first government. The SNP are keen to conflate the two when it
:06:59. > :07:01.suits them. I disagree, James. The problem is that none of the other
:07:02. > :07:05.political parties have said what they will do in Scotland becomes
:07:06. > :07:11.independent. They are standing on the other side of the wall, except
:07:12. > :07:17.they are now getting worried that they might lose the vote. The SNP is
:07:18. > :07:22.actually the only political party at this point that has foot poured ``
:07:23. > :07:26.put forward some of the ideas of what Scotland could and should be
:07:27. > :07:32.like. That would be the only offered to people of Scotland when we get to
:07:33. > :07:39.2016. So the white paper is a manifesto for 2016 is what you are
:07:40. > :07:47.saying? One part of it? So it conflates the two? It might conflate
:07:48. > :07:52.the two, but there is no reason that Nato should suddenly think that what
:07:53. > :08:00.Denmark spends is fine, or that what the SNP intend Scotland to spend is
:08:01. > :08:06.not find. I want to move on to the Scottish Daily Mail. SNP blasted
:08:07. > :08:10.because its MPs failed to turn up against the party's pet hate
:08:11. > :08:17.policy. This is something you alluded to in a previous review,
:08:18. > :08:33.James. This is a sign of the strange days we the Daily Mail is pressing
:08:34. > :08:40.Labour MPs on what many people would call a Conservative policy. The
:08:41. > :08:45.Daily Mail says the Nationalists have been condemned for stunning
:08:46. > :08:51.hypocrisy, which is excellent, coming from the Daily Mail. They
:08:52. > :08:57.don't like this policy, but they didn't turn up to vote. It is not
:08:58. > :09:01.for me to defend the four who weren't there, and I hope they have
:09:02. > :09:06.a good explanation for that for the people of Scotland. The people of
:09:07. > :09:12.Scotland, in common with other places in the UK, have been damaged
:09:13. > :09:18.and hurt by the bedroom tax, and condemn it utterly. Scotland does
:09:19. > :09:22.have an opportunity if we vote for independence, to create a welfare
:09:23. > :09:26.system that is closer to the green of what we might want. Generally
:09:27. > :09:34.speaking, I would find it inexcusable for MPs not to turn up
:09:35. > :09:40.and do their job. It is up to them to defend what they have done. On
:09:41. > :09:48.the Daily Telegraph, unemployed to get attitude tests. Interviews to
:09:49. > :09:55.assess whether they are resistant psychologically to work. I suppose
:09:56. > :09:59.on a bad day we all fall into that category, but this is another
:10:00. > :10:05.measure to try to work out why people haven't got a job. It is more
:10:06. > :10:12.than that. It is another measure that implies that the reason people
:10:13. > :10:17.haven't got a job is because their attitude is wrong. It might be
:10:18. > :10:22.because our economy produces pretty poor, low`wage jobs, and there
:10:23. > :10:25.aren't enough of them to go around, and that might be the result of an
:10:26. > :10:31.economic policy being pursued through Westminster. The other part
:10:32. > :10:35.of this is, who is doing this assessment? We have some terrible
:10:36. > :10:38.examples of this ability assessments that are frankly outrageous and very
:10:39. > :10:46.unfair on those who had to undergo them. I just find this very
:10:47. > :10:49.disturbing. Here we go again, let's blame people for the circumstance in
:10:50. > :10:54.which they find themselves when actually, some of that arises at its
:10:55. > :11:00.core from policies pursued by the UK government. No merit in these tests
:11:01. > :11:06.at all? Personally, no, in one sense it is outrageous. It is slightly
:11:07. > :11:12.Orwellian, the fact that you will be psychologically questioned and
:11:13. > :11:21.graded as determined, but will do, or despondent. I shouldn't laugh,
:11:22. > :11:27.I'm sorry, I couldn't hold that in. Let's move on to the FT. And,
:11:28. > :11:31.another Scottish referendum story. It's like they knew you were going
:11:32. > :11:36.to be here! The union camp have been pushed to halt yes charge. David
:11:37. > :11:42.Cameron warning again of more problems if Scotland votes for
:11:43. > :11:47.independence. There will be more vulnerable in a dangerous and
:11:48. > :11:52.insecure world. As they say, they describe it as panic in the no
:11:53. > :11:57.camp, and that is what I'm picking up as the polls have tightened. The
:11:58. > :12:01.no camp are more worried. He did in the middle of the story are two
:12:02. > :12:07.possible strategies. One is David Cameron saying we kept passionately
:12:08. > :12:14.about our family of nations. That is a positive spin on it. Followed by
:12:15. > :12:21.the, which says that if you leave, you will probably get blown up it is
:12:22. > :12:26.you won't be in Nato any more. They need to decide which one they are
:12:27. > :12:31.going to go forth, it could of sticking them together like that.
:12:32. > :12:34.The other story is Gordon Brown promising greater devolution.
:12:35. > :12:41.Someone who writes under the name that is a pro`independence tweeter,
:12:42. > :12:47.saying, does Gordon Brown control Ed Miliband? And he promised greater
:12:48. > :12:54.devolution at this stage? Causey can't. There is not a Scottish MP
:12:55. > :12:59.who can promise greater devolution, because people need to put it into
:13:00. > :13:03.their manifestoes, they need to be the party who then gets a late two
:13:04. > :13:09.Parliament, it needs to be prioritised in the legislative of
:13:10. > :13:13.RAM, and then they need to convince their backbenchers to vote for it.
:13:14. > :13:17.Given the comments of people like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage and
:13:18. > :13:21.others about how, when Scotland votes no in their expectation, I
:13:22. > :13:26.think they might be wrong about that... When Scotland votes no, that
:13:27. > :13:32.is it, we have given them enough, we don't need to do any more, I find it
:13:33. > :13:36.highly unlikely and disingenuous to say the least, of the former prime
:13:37. > :13:51.ministers to promise to guarantee anything. I wish I could `` I wish
:13:52. > :13:55.you could see James's face. Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, neither of
:13:56. > :14:02.them are even in the House of Commons, and we don't know if they
:14:03. > :14:06.will be up to 25th in. How they could hold them up as having any
:14:07. > :14:10.kind of influence, I just don't understand. You know as well as I do
:14:11. > :14:15.the impact of what they are saying and what they represent on the Tory
:14:16. > :14:19.party, down south in particular. So, they don't need to be in
:14:20. > :14:25.Westminster to be hugely influential and for us to see how the Tory
:14:26. > :14:28.policies are shifting and moving and their backbenchers are anxious and
:14:29. > :14:32.upset, and David Cameron is under a lot of pressure. You don't have to
:14:33. > :14:38.be elected for that to happen. I know you want to chip in, but you
:14:39. > :14:47.can't! We had to end. James Millar and Jean Freeman, thank you for
:14:48. > :15:02.joining us. Coming up next, it is time for Sportsday.
:15:03. > :15:06.Hello and welcome to Sportsday. I'm Nina Warhurst. England will start
:15:07. > :15:09.their Euro 2016 campaign without Daniel Sturridge. A training injury
:15:10. > :15:10.has ruled the striker out of Monday's