05/09/2014 The Papers


No need to wait to see what's in the papers - tune in for a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles