05/09/2014 The Papers

game in the rugby premiership season. And, we covered the Italian

Grand Prix. James Millar of the Sunday Post is

with us, and... I thought that was going to appear miraculously

quickly. How would it lets you down! Jane Freeman from the women

for independence campaign. I'm glad you haven't left, Jean. Let's have a

look at the front pages. The Daily Mail leads with a story claiming

some of our biggest banks have been intimidating their customers. Nato

leaders gaze at a fly past on the front of the Independent, the

Financial Times has the same picture, but talks about the

Scottish referendum. The Daily Telegraph says that Britain could

become involved in a three`year battle with Islamist militants.

Five`year`old Ashya King dominates the front page of the Guardian. He

is now heading to Prague for treatment, but some British doctors

are critical of the technique is to receive. The Daily Express says

there is outrage at claims that police are dropping prosecutions.

The Times carries a picture of the US president on his trip to

Stonehenge. And, Scotsman leads with a headline that Nato is casting

doubt over possible Scottish membership of the alliance because

SNP defence spending plans for short of expectations. We will begin with

the Times, and its take on this pledge by the west to smash ISIS,

now really known as Islamic State `` West. Britain has signed up to this

coalition led by the US. That is even if the campaign lasts for three

years. We are edging closer and closer to military intervention.

Yes. The three years figure is intriguing, differs according to the

PM, we are signed up. Then what? Do we give up after three years? It

smacks a little bit of, it will all be over by Christmas. We went into

Iraq and Afghanistan, that wasn't going to take long either. There

needs to be a commitment of us to do something, because we have been

hearing things coming out of the Islamic State that are clearly

awful, and people would like to see something done about it. That

something might be airstrikes, might be drones, but the reluctance is

always that phrase, boots on the ground, isn't it? Yes, it is. What

is interesting about this story is how more clearly the combative tone

of the language is emerging. Until now, there has been some talk, but

the time seems to have changed, and yet we are still not clear what the

timetable might be, or what the plan is. I know that it says, and the UK

PM and the US President are quoted as saying that we will strike out

against IS and we will smash them, but it is not clear to me what the

plan is. As James says, what happens if after three years it is not

sorted? One of the great criticisms on Iraq was that there was no exit

plan. I think this begs more questions really than it answers,

albeit that there might have been a growing feeling that a number of

things were happening in the world, and what was Nato doing about it,

what was the point of Nato? But at this point, just being combative in

your language, and I'm noticing one or two things, I really don't think

that will satisfy people. The other thing that strikes me, is that I'm

not sure that the public is quite as alert to what is happening, and

quite as anxious about it as the political leaders are. That does not

mean that the public are right, and the leaders are wrong. I just think

a bit of catch`up needs to go on, which is similar to where we were on

Iraq. Let's move on to the Scotsman. They say that the SNP plans fall

short on defence spending. I don't know if you have seen this in its

entirety. It is another warning from another body that no doubt Scotland

would want to be part of, isn't it ? It is interesting, the vote in under

two weeks is about whether or not Scotland becomes independent. The

SNP would hope they were, wouldn't they? I'm sure they would, and I'm

sure the planned figure for spending on defence is exactly the same as

Denmark's, and Nato don't seem to have a problem there. I think what

may have happened here, and it would be a huge surprise, is that somebody

in Nato has said, I'm not sure that is enough money, and that has said

there might not get in. The former Ambassador to Nato has said that she

sees no problem, and Scotland would be welcome. We are going around this

circle again, like we did on Europe and the currency, but actually, this

Nato story doesn't stack up. If you step back and look at it coolly. On

social media, David Henry has answered the call for comments on

Twitter. He says Scotland will have its own Defence Force based in

Scotland, new coastal ships, and more jobs will be created building

them. It is good that he knows. It is all very well saying this is

conflating SNP policy with Scotland and independence, but that is what

happens in the white paper. The white paper produced by the SNP

Scottish government includes plans for defence spending, which would be

up to the first government. The SNP are keen to conflate the two when it

suits them. I disagree, James. The problem is that none of the other

political parties have said what they will do in Scotland becomes

independent. They are standing on the other side of the wall, except

they are now getting worried that they might lose the vote. The SNP is

actually the only political party at this point that has foot poured ``

put forward some of the ideas of what Scotland could and should be

like. That would be the only offered to people of Scotland when we get to

2016. So the white paper is a manifesto for 2016 is what you are

saying? One part of it? So it conflates the two? It might conflate

the two, but there is no reason that Nato should suddenly think that what

Denmark spends is fine, or that what the SNP intend Scotland to spend is

not find. I want to move on to the Scottish Daily Mail. SNP blasted

because its MPs failed to turn up against the party's pet hate

policy. This is something you alluded to in a previous review,

James. This is a sign of the strange days we the Daily Mail is pressing

Labour MPs on what many people would call a Conservative policy. The

Daily Mail says the Nationalists have been condemned for stunning

hypocrisy, which is excellent, coming from the Daily Mail. They

don't like this policy, but they didn't turn up to vote. It is not

for me to defend the four who weren't there, and I hope they have

a good explanation for that for the people of Scotland. The people of

Scotland, in common with other places in the UK, have been damaged

and hurt by the bedroom tax, and condemn it utterly. Scotland does

have an opportunity if we vote for independence, to create a welfare

system that is closer to the green of what we might want. Generally

speaking, I would find it inexcusable for MPs not to turn up

and do their job. It is up to them to defend what they have done. On

the Daily Telegraph, unemployed to get attitude tests. Interviews to

assess whether they are resistant psychologically to work. I suppose

on a bad day we all fall into that category, but this is another

measure to try to work out why people haven't got a job. It is more

than that. It is another measure that implies that the reason people

haven't got a job is because their attitude is wrong. It might be

because our economy produces pretty poor, low`wage jobs, and there

aren't enough of them to go around, and that might be the result of an

economic policy being pursued through Westminster. The other part

of this is, who is doing this assessment? We have some terrible

examples of this ability assessments that are frankly outrageous and very

unfair on those who had to undergo them. I just find this very

disturbing. Here we go again, let's blame people for the circumstance in

which they find themselves when actually, some of that arises at its

core from policies pursued by the UK government. No merit in these tests

at all? Personally, no, in one sense it is outrageous. It is slightly

Orwellian, the fact that you will be psychologically questioned and

graded as determined, but will do, or despondent. I shouldn't laugh,

I'm sorry, I couldn't hold that in. Let's move on to the FT. And,

another Scottish referendum story. It's like they knew you were going

to be here! The union camp have been pushed to halt yes charge. David

Cameron warning again of more problems if Scotland votes for

independence. There will be more vulnerable in a dangerous and

insecure world. As they say, they describe it as panic in the no

camp, and that is what I'm picking up as the polls have tightened. The

no camp are more worried. He did in the middle of the story are two

possible strategies. One is David Cameron saying we kept passionately

about our family of nations. That is a positive spin on it. Followed by

the, which says that if you leave, you will probably get blown up it is

you won't be in Nato any more. They need to decide which one they are

going to go forth, it could of sticking them together like that.

The other story is Gordon Brown promising greater devolution.

Someone who writes under the name that is a pro`independence tweeter,

saying, does Gordon Brown control Ed Miliband? And he promised greater

devolution at this stage? Causey can't. There is not a Scottish MP

who can promise greater devolution, because people need to put it into

their manifestoes, they need to be the party who then gets a late two

Parliament, it needs to be prioritised in the legislative of

RAM, and then they need to convince their backbenchers to vote for it.

Given the comments of people like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage and

others about how, when Scotland votes no in their expectation, I

think they might be wrong about that... When Scotland votes no, that

is it, we have given them enough, we don't need to do any more, I find it

highly unlikely and disingenuous to say the least, of the former prime

ministers to promise to guarantee anything. I wish I could `` I wish

you could see James's face. Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, neither of

them are even in the House of Commons, and we don't know if they

will be up to 25th in. How they could hold them up as having any

kind of influence, I just don't understand. You know as well as I do

the impact of what they are saying and what they represent on the Tory

party, down south in particular. So, they don't need to be in

Westminster to be hugely influential and for us to see how the Tory

policies are shifting and moving and their backbenchers are anxious and

upset, and David Cameron is under a lot of pressure. You don't have to

be elected for that to happen. I know you want to chip in, but you

can't! We had to end. James Millar and Jean Freeman, thank you for

joining us. Coming up next, it is time for Sportsday.

Hello and welcome to Sportsday. I'm Nina Warhurst. England will start

their Euro 2016 campaign without Daniel Sturridge. A training injury

has ruled the striker out of Monday's