next. congress backs the president on war. and this is "hardball." president obama is just about to address both houses of congress. the senate just voted, 78-22, to authorize the arms in training. the house had voted yesterday. also in support of the president's position. the senator joins us. he is an independent who lines with the democrat. what do you think this vote means? does this mean the congress -- let's go to the president. >> the international coalition

to degrade and destroy the terrorist group known as isil. part of the air campaign, france will join in strikes against isil targets in iraq and as one of our oldest and closest allies, france is a strong partner in our efforts against terrorism and we're pleased that french and american service members will once again work together on behalf of our shared security and our shared values. more broadly, more than 40 countries including arab nations have now offered assistance as part of the coalition. this includes support for iraqi forces, strengthening the iraqi government, providing humanitarian aid to iraqi civilians and doing their part in the fight against isil. here at home i'm please that had congress, a majority of democrats and a majority of republicans in both the house and the senate have now voted to support a key element of our strategy. our plan to train and equip the opposition in syria so they can

help push back these terrorists. as i said last week, i believe that we're strongest as a nation when the president and congress work together and i want to thank leaders in congress for the speed and seriousness with which they approach this urgent issue in keeping with the bipartisanship that is the hallmark of american foreign policy at its best. these syrian opposition forces are fighting both the brutality of isil terrorists and the tyranny of the assad regime. we had already ramped up our assistance, including military assistance to the syrian opposition. with this new effort we'll provide training and equipment to help them grow stronger and take on isil terrorists inside syria. this program will be hosted outside of syria and partnership with arab countries and it will be matched by our increasing support for iraqi government and kurdish forces in iraq. this is in keeping with a key principle of our strategy. the american forces that have been deployed to iraq do not and

will not have a combat mission. their mission is to advise and assist our partners on the ground. so i told our troops yesterday. we can join with allies and partners to destroy isil without american troops fighting another ground war in the middle east. the strong bipartisan support shows the world that americans are united in confronting the threat from isil which has slaughtered so many innocent civilians. they thought they could frighten us or intimidate us or cause to us shrink from the world but today they're learning the same hard lesson of petty tirnlts and terrorists who have gone before. as americans, we do not give into fear. when you harm our citizens, when you threaten the united states, when you threaten our allies, it doesn't divide us. it unites us. we pull together, we stand together to defend this country and make sure justice is done as well as to join with those who seek a better future of dignity and opportunity for all people.

today our strikes continue. we're taking out their terrorists. we're destroying their vehicles and equipment and stockpiles. and we salute our dedicated pilots and crews who are carrying out these missions with great courage and skill. as commander in chief i could not be more proud of their service. as i told them yesterday, the american people are united in our support for them and their families and as we go forward, as one nation i would ask all americans to keep our forces and their families in their thoughts and prayers. >> i was wondering, if we had a vote on whether to authorize the air strikes, the actual combat by the united states, would it have passed anywhere near 78-22 like the other, arming the opposition groups? >> my first thought was isil did the impossible. it generated 78 votes on anything in the senate.

that ought to strike fear. i don't know. any of the important phrases that the president used was, the important phrase he used -- >> i'm sorry. going back in time. the important phrase he used was, an element of my strategy. the rest of the strategy will come before the congress sometime after the elections in november or december when we have to talk about an authorization for the larger air strikes, the whole strategy in iraq and syria. that could be a different discussion. a different debate. i think it will be a favorable one but i think congress has a role to play there and we'll have to step up. >> do you have a sense, i'm not being unfair but maybe i am. do you have a sense of the politics of syria? the various factions that we're talking about aiding and arming? giving arms to and training and sending them back, programs even paying them? do we know these people we're

giving guns to? >> this is an effort, to vet them. to talk to contacts that we have in syria so there is that process. syria is one of the most complicated places on earth. they're something like 1,200 different opposition groups. so just imagine trying to sort that out. the last thing we want to do is arm people who will turn around. >> news coming out of england. right now the prime minister, david cameron is at ten downing street responding to the rejection of scotland's referendum on independence. >> like millions of other people i am delighted. as i said during the campaign, it would have broken my heart to see our united kingdom come to an end.

i know that sentiment was shared by people, not just across our country but also around the world. because of what we've achieved together in the past and what we can do together in the future. so now it is time for our united kingdom to come together and to move forward. a vital part of that will be a balanced settlement, fair to people in scotland and importantly, to everyone in england, wales and northern ireland as well. let us remember first why we had this debate. and why it was right to do so. the scottish national party was elected in scotland in 2011 and promised a referendum on independents. we could have tried to block that. we could have tried to put it off. but just as with other big issues, it is right to take and not to duck the big decisions. i am a passionate believer in

our united kingdom and i wanted more than anything for our united kingdom to stay together. but i am also a democrat and it was right that we respected the majority and gave the scottish people their right to have their say. let us also remember why it was right to ask the definitive question, yes or no. now the debate has been settled for a generation. or as alex said, programs for a lifetime so there can be no disputes, no reruns. we have heard the settled will of the scottish people. scotland voted for a stronger scottish parliament backed by the strength and security of the united kingdom. and i want to congratulate the no campaign for that. for showing people that our nations really are better together. i also want to pay tribute to

yes scotland for a well fought campaign and to say to all those who did vote for independence, we hear you. we now have a chance, a great opportunity to change the way the british people are governed and change it for the better. political leaders on all sides of the debate now bear a heavy responsibility to come together and work constructively, to advance the interests of people in scotland as well as those in england, wales and northern ireland for each and every citizen of our united kingdom. to those in scottland, skeptical of the constitutional promise that's were made, let me say this. we have delivered on devolution on this government and we will do so again in the next parliament. the three pro union parties have made commitments, clear commitments on further powers for the scottish parliament. we will ensure those commitments are honored in full.

and i can announce today that lord smith of kelvin who so successfully led the commonwealth games has agreed to oversee the process to take forward these devolution commitments with powers over tax, spending and welfare, all agreed by november, and draft legislation published by january. just as the people of scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows the people of england, wales and northern ireland must have a bigger say over theirs. the rights of these voters need to be respected, preserved and enhanced. it is absolutely right that a new and fair settlement for scotland should be accompanied by a new and fair settlement that applies tul parts of our united kingdom. in wales there are proposals to give the welch government more assembly and powers and i want wales to be at the heart of the debate on how to make our united

kingdom work for all our nations. in northern ireland we must work to ensure the devolved institutions function effectively. but i have long believed that a crucial part missing from this national discussion is england. we have heard the voice of scotland and now the million of voices of england must also be heard. the question of english votes for english laws, the so-called question requires a decisive answer. so just as scotland will vote separately in the scottish parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so, too, england as well as wales and northern ireland should be able to vote on these issues and all of this must take place in tandem with and at the same pace as the settlement for scotland. i hope this will take place on a cross party basis. i've asked william haig to draw up these plans. we will set up a cabinet

committee right away and proposals will also be ready to the same timetable. i hope the labor party and other parties will contribute. it is also important that we have wider civic engagement about how to improve governance throughout our united kingdom including how to empower our great cities. we will say more about this in the coming days. this referendum has been hard fought. it has stirred strong passions. it is electrified politics in scotland and caught the imagination of people across the whole of our united kingdom. it will be reynold as a powerful demonstration of the strength and vitality of our ancient democracy. record numbers registered to vote and record numbers cast their vote. we should all be proud of that. it is reminded us how fortunate we are that we are able to settle these vital issues at the ballot box, peacefully and calmly. now we must look forward and

turn this into the moment when everyone whichever way they voted, comes together to build that better, brighter future for our entire united kingdom. thank you very much. and good morning. >> prime minister david cameron there offering about six, seven minutes of commentary. this after alex salmond, the leader of the scottish nationalist party had put out his concession speech about an hour ago in that his effort for an independent country of scotland had failed. 55-45%. the nos winning in the edge. that coming out within the last hour. richard wolf from msnbc.com has been watching this throughout the evening. as we've been getting in the data, different counties coming in. you are watching very keenly here a couple of areas. that was, of course, glasgow as well as edinburgh. now, that's what happened in the last hour. let's talk about the future for

a second and what this speech meant here for the prime minister. he came down in prime time in morning tv in the u.k., it is now about 7:00 a.m. >> so he used that phrase, it would have broken his heart if scotland had broken away. it would have also broken his career. he would have been the prime minister who presided over the break-up of the united kingdom after 307 years of union. so a moment of huge power for him. he is a very confident speaker, great presentation there. but he has a very tough political situation ahead of him. he has his re-election bid pegged for may of next year. he has the rise of english nationalism. anti-european movement right there in england so all of that for english votes for english people is something he has to do to attack this. the threat from the right. now on the left. the labor party that was tony blair's party is coming back. he's been slightly ahead of the polls. their central of power is

actually scotland hx scotland broken away, he would have been just fine because labor could not have challenged him. he has a lot of threat there to his own re-election. he has to reassert his leadership. he has to reshape english and british politics. that's a lot to do in a very short period of time especially with international threats, an economy still struggling to get out of a recession. >> i want to play a little bit of what alex salmond said in his concession speech and then i'll get your reaction. let's listen to that. >> our friends in scotland are still to speak. the final results aren't in. but we know that there will be a majority for the no campaign. >> so he concedes here, richard. and he says this could be the decision for a generation. the prime minister as we heard him say. it will be for at least, excuse me a lifetime was said by

salmond and then the prime minister was saying a generation. is it really over for now? >> it is for now. what we've seen is that they come back ten and ten again. they see it as a building support. before national support was maybe in the 20, 30-point range. here they have a pretty healthy 45 points here. they're 10 points behind the winning side. that's a big change. almost half the people in scotland. 85% took part in this election. that's a tremendous solid base when you're on a 20, 30, 50-year goal to break free. i imagine the scottish nationalists will come back again and again. you will get more powers. you heard david cameron talking with extra taxation powers. they will seize the moment. but to someone as talented as

salmon, many think he is the most talented across the nation. >> 15 seconds. what does this mean for the u.s.? >> i think it is more instability in an unable world at a time of many foreign crises, what you want is really strong leadership in a country like the u.k. >> all right. thank you so much. you've been following this for us all evening. we'll now return to "hardball" with chris matthews. that programming already in progress. stay right here with msnbc for the very latest coming out of scotland, as well as other news throughout the day. ♪ yeah, girl ♪ you know, i've been thinking about us ♪ ♪ and, uh, i just can't fight it anymore ♪ ♪ it's bundle time ♪ bundle ♪ mm, feel those savings, baby

and that's how a home and auto bundle is made. better he learns it here than on the streets. the miracle of bundling -- now, that's progressive. the kansas supreme court has ordered the removal of chad taylor's name for the ballot. this clears the path for a real match-up between greg or mond

and pat roberts. taylor dropped out earlier this month but republican secretary of state said he did not comply with the state election law. today, the court dismissed that argument. this is great news for the democrats. we're hoping he will align with them in the senate. you met. you met. but your erectile dysfunction - it could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision,

or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

welcome back to "hardball." with no u.s. troops on the grouped, the success of our operation against isis hinges on recruiting so-called moderate fighters in syria, forces which the obama administration says will be appropriately vetted. according to the language, the syrian opposition will be vetted for associations with terrorist groups, shia militias aligned with or supporting the government of syria. and running background checks on a force of fighters halfway around the world, chuck hagel assured congress on tuesday that it's worth the risk.

>> a rigorous vetting process will be critical to the success of this program. dod will work with the state department, the intelligence community and our partners in the region to screen and vet the forces we train and equip. we will monitor them closely to ensure that weapons do not fall into the hands of radical elements of the opposition, isil, the syrian regime or other extremist groups. we believe that risk is justified by the imperative of destroying isil. >> still many are skeptical about the vetting process and doubts remain about making alliances with groups we know so little about. josh, thank you for your article today. i read it when i got up early. it's about the whole question of who we're giving arms and training to. this country, i know this sounds odd, but it's true. we trained the flyers of 9/11 in florida. the guy giving the lesson said, i thought they were from

germany. they weren't. they were islamists. now we have guys in our own military turn out to be terrorists, one at ft. hood. how in the abstract can we go to another country, that we can't even go into and somehow pluck out of that country, people who are going to be allied with us in the fight against isis? how do we even locate them? >> well, i think that's a real question, chris. some of these people have been lining up, asking for our help for some time for the free syrian army. we know after a couple years know who some of those people are. the question is, can we get up to a number like 5,000 troops, which is what the obama administration is talking about training in this program that will probably take place in saudi arabia? can we vet that many people in a year's time or less? and will 5,000 be enough? or do we need alliances with the

local militia in syria who are nastier by comparison than anybody that might be in the fsa bunch? >> you cover everything. so you know the problem of vetting. we have a united states senate that can't even approve ambassadors. it takes forever. >> yeah. >> how do we vet and find out whether a person, is it just telling us what we want to hear? i want to train to fight isis, but they want to fight assad, or fight the west, or shari'a law? we don't know what they're fighting for. >> this is an enormous problem and you have secretary hagel make it sound as easy as running fingerprints through a database. what we know, in iraq, there was a trained army there and they basically folded and a lot of those weapons that the iraqi army had ended up in the hands of isil. so this idea that we'll be able to pick these folks out, people that the obama administration have derided in the past as not reliable, definitely hard to

think this is going to work out. the number one problem, we're selling a non-war war. >> it's what the british did when they fought us in the american revolution, hiring the hessians. there were great german fighters, but they didn't have their heart in it. joe manchin spoke about the complexion yesterday raising serious questions about the people we may be aligning ourselves with. here's senator manchin. >> i'm not confident that we know who our allies are. and to illustrate that point, i refer my colleagues to press reports from moderate syrian opposition forces sold american journalists steve sotloff to isis, who beheaded him and put the video on internet.

are those people are allies? >> that's a hell of an accusation. i know from another journalist that there was another group that had steve sotloff, they had him, they were going to trade him, then they sold him apparently to isis who didn't want to sell. they just wanted to kill him. >> yeah, there are a lot of these smaller militias inside syria. a lot of folks think there's a few groups, isis, this free syrian army. there's al nusra, but there are dozens, if not hundreds of militias, that are defending this hometown in the context of this battle with the syrian government and their allegiance on any given day is up for grabs, sometimes perhaps to the highest bidder available. they'll make agreements with different groups each day. so to think the u.s. can keep its hands clean and get everybody to line up is just, i think, a fantasy. >> are we going to pay this army? >> i think that that's a big part of it. i think we have been paying them

already. >> how do you trust anybody if you're paying them? everybody is going to say, you can pay me, give me a uniform and a gun. i'll take that. how do you know their loyalty is in the same direction as ours? i always wonder why we're paying soldiers in a army we're creating to fight a war that we'd like to fight, but we can't fight it at home and those countries don't want us there. >> we know their loyalties are not in the same direction. their main enemy still is the assad regime and we're trying to get them to divert and focus more attention on isis. they don't like isis. they've done nasty things to free syrian army fighters to the other moderate forces. but at the same time, the main object of all the fighting in the last two to three years, has been to bring down the a sad regime and the notion that we

can step into it at this late date and convert them to some other goal, i think, again is just hard to believe. >> you have to figure that assad and his family, which have all been played up wonderfully in "vogue" magazine, this very beautiful family and all this phoniness, he's thinking, i got another lease on life. >> yeah, this lengthens his grip on power, something that america at least in words, if not necessarily in deeds has been trying to loosen over these many -- last three years or so. so this seems to extend his life span there at the helm in overseeing this very messy conflict that now we want to get in the middle of. >> there's always the potential of unintended consequences when the u.s. gets involved with these factions in foreign conflicts. people really don't know very well. many trace our modern day problems in afghanistan to the reagan policy to arm the afghan mujahideen who fought against the soviet union in that country. hillary clinton cited that example in her testimony to the house appropriations sub

committee in 2009. let's watch her looking at how the roots of these things develop. >> let's remember here, the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago. we did it because we were locked into a battle with the soviet union and it was president reagan in partnership with the congress, led by democrats, who said, sounds like a pretty good deal. let's deal with the isi and the pakistani military, and recruit the mujahideen. it wasn't a bad investment, but let's be careful what we sew, because we will harvest. >> there's an interesting phrase. let's be careful what we sew. if you saw charlie wilson's war, it was about the congressman from texas who got us involved in paying for missiles to bring down the soviet helicopters and began the soviet union as an empire, and yet they sort of morphed into a different

direction later on. they didn't like the west, didn't like occupiers, didn't like people like us. >> and according to administration officials, this has been obama's big concern all along. this is why we've gone so slow in the effort to arm these fighters, why we've been reluctant to give them anti-aircraft weapons and anti-tank weapons. the worry is these teams will be turned on some force friendly to us, or on ourselves down the road, but the president has been moved off the dime on this one, basically by the threat of this particularly brutal force of isis. and he's now willing to take that risk, as secretary hagel said, that this might come back to haunt us later. >> josh, you're allowed to assert an opinion, right? so i'm going to ask you this. is this stupid stuff, as the president would say, when he says, don't do stupid stuff, arming people we don't, giving them training and perhaps paying them to go into syria, is that stupid stuff, as you see it?

>> i think it could become that. at the moment, we think we know who the rebels are. but there's some question, as we open the spigot, the risk just increases and i think there's a point in which we're taking a big chance and some of these weapons will fall into the wrong hands. >> thank you very much. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ back to "hardball."

back to "hardball." rumors of a presidential run in 2016, bernie sanders has been getting a lot of attention lately as the only self-identified socialist. he's always been considered something of an outlier. but that's not all that's set him apart.

a local paper recently discovered sanders recorded an album of folk songs back in 1987. yes, they found a copy. let's listen. ♪ if i went walking that ribbon of highway ♪ ♪ i saw above me that endless skyway ♪ ♪ i saw below me that golden valley ♪ ♪ this land was made for you and me ♪ >> i think you call that brooklyn country. needless to say, i'm not sure the critical reception will be all that positive. next up, another politician busted for plagiarism. they accused her of lifting passages from a health care survey by karl rove and passing it off on her own website. first they called the

accusations absurd, but after another blatant cut and paste, the campaign confessed and took the passages down. they keep getting caught, and keep doing it. up next, the eyes of the world are on scotland as the country votes for independence. alan cumming is a big activist for the movement, he joins us here. and you're watching "hardball," a place for politics. plagiarism.

welcome back to "hardball." the world has its eyes on the historic vote for scottish independence. as of this morning, the opinion polls showed a tight race that could go either way.

the atmosphere is electric, the votes are in right now and results are likely to come across the popped around 2:00 a.m. east coast time. that's 2:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. a million unknowns permeate this race. for the first time the voting age of the dropped to just 16. there are questions about britain's nuclear arsenal, which is housed in scotland. there could be a war over use of the british pound. and then there's our relationship with britain, our closest ally is looking at an historic upheaval, a major embarrassment for prime minister david cameron. it comes down to pride versus risk. we're thrilled to bring in alan cumming, legend of the stage and screen, grew up in scotland, an outspoken person for the independence. i loved him in cabaret as everybody else was lucky to see him in it. i think you and i may disagree. i feel like i'm rooting for the mom and dad to get together and

there you are, rooting for the divorce. explain why you choose the risk of scottish independence over what you got now. >> well, i think there's a lot of things on the table. but mostly, i think it's a question of values. that's why i want scotland to become independent. i think we are different. we always vote much more left than the rest of the country and we rarely get a government that reflects that. and so the things that we really value, like free education, a really great health service are under threat. if we don't get to control our own destiny, like the rest of the uk, those things are starting to disappear or to actually cost more money. so for me, it's very much about, we know the economic situation is a good one, in terms of what scotland's potential is. it's just about us being allowed to control it and not be told what to do by a government at the other end of the country. >> how much of it is nationalist pride like william wallace in

the movie, we've never had a country of our own. i don't know if the accent was right, but is that part of your feeling? >> i think i've actually been impressed and surprised about how the "yes" campaign has not played that emotional card. they've been much more focused on the issues and it's been the other side that's drawn the sentimental card. david carman teared up in his last speech on that. but i just think that obviously there's a lot to do with that kind of whole, we are being oppressed and persecuted by english landlords. but i think when it comes down to it, we'll still be very much in a situation where we're always engaging in england. it's not about hating england. it's about us not being told what to do by people who don't

share the same values as us and don't seem to care for us that much as well. >> do you think the queen talked down to you? i read your piece that you suggested the queen was condescending by saying, why don't you people take this seriously? >> i think scots should think very carefully about this decision. like, hello? we've been thinking about it very carefully for years. and i think that is emblem attic of the way that scots are viewed by the establishment, and by the establishment, i mean, not so much the monarchy, although i referred to it there, but more the westminster government and the establishment of -- there's a famous photograph from -- i think they're at oxford. it's a bunch of students all dressed up. david cameron, clegg, johnson, they're all from this privileged and established organization. they have gone on to be the establishment.

and that, i think, is something that we as scots looking at that think, why can't we -- why are these people telling us who to do with our country, when we have very different values, and we actually base our system on merit and talent and hard work, and not on just kind of, you know, privilege. >> so it sounds like a battle. i had a british teacher who talked like this. it's a battle against the establishment. the people that went to oxford and cambridge who come from the right families, always connected by cousins and they've been running the place forever. is that part of your assault on what is the status quo? you don't like that? >> i don't like that. but it is more complex than that. but i do definitely think there's an element of that. this is a chance for scotland to not have to deal with that. to actually govern ourselves, for ourselves. it's become apparent in the last couple of weeks, the way that the establishment, if you like,

and i include all three of the named political parties in westminster in this, the way they've kind of treated the scottish people. and bringing the max thing back on the table when they insisted it was removed from the table a year ago and not expecting the scottish people dealing with that situation, not expecting them to balk at that. i find that emblem attic again of this disdain and the kind of slight. this worries me, if we don't take this chance to not have to deal with that, when is the next time we'll get that chance? >> let's take a look at this ad, it's part of the "no" campaign. you have a woman there month made up her mind. it was criticized as being patronizing toward women, they said. the bbc said it backfired embarrassingly amid accusations of lazy sexism. let's watch some of the ad that's turned people off here.

>> he will not read off the referendum. started again first thing this morning. have you made a decision yet? i was like, it's too early to be discussing politics. eat your cereal. not much time left for me to make a decision. but there's only so many hours in the day. and one thing i do know, i will not be gambling with my children's future. you know what, i've made up my mind. i'm going to do what's best for scotland, so that will be a "no" from me. >> what did you think of the "no" advertisement? >> i thought it was so condescending and sexist and just revolting. i mean, really. oh, politics, i'm far too busy with the kids to deal with that. i mean, really? come on, people. it's another example of, you know, don't get me started. >> well, i'm glad i did get you started. i'm a huge fan, as you know. and i'm rooting for you to be eli gold, that chicago operative because i used to be an

operative like that, i think it's great you're on american television and stage and i love cabaret. thank you very much. the audience love you. >> thank you. >> the new season of "the good wife" premieres this sunday. for more, let's bring in toby, the washington bureau chief for the sunday times. did you know the scots don't like the condescending attitude of the english? >> yeah, alan put it very, very eloquent case. you listen to that case, and if you're somebody that wants the united kingdom to stay as sort of one country, your heart sings. i think he's absolutely right that the tenor of the "no" campaign has been, you foolish scottish peasants, don't you know that everybody's who's clever knows you should remain in the united kingdom. >> what about them being tired of being under the boot of the establishment? >> very important point. if you look at cameron and

miliband and clegg. all oxford and cambridge educated, an establishment class, a southern english class -- >> what about gordon brown, he's a scott and he's been fighting like hell for unity. he's a great guy. >> gordon brown, i thought his speech was magnificent, and that was the first sign, i think, it was the end of the englishmen going north of the border and preaching to the scots. >> what's a plumy boy? >> like a posh person. and that was from the heart. that was a very emotional argument for the union. and i think if the "no" vote does sort of win, then i think people will look at gordon brown's speech and think that was the thing that saved the day. >> what's left of britain if great britain is not united anymore? >> a lot less. 8% of the population goes.

a large amount of the land mass -- >> what do you call your country? >> well, the debate over the flag, what the flag's going to be -- >> is it the united kingdom of britain and northern ireland? >> people talking about our uk as. >> oh, come on. >> exactly. >> we fought a civil war over this issue. but something we've never had, the nationalist thing again, like edward long shanks, the british king up there. >> but i think english people and to a lesser extent welsh people and northern ireland people will feel like a limb has been chopped off. >> i keep thinking of the wars we fought on the same side, the british and the americans, world war i, world war ii, everything we fought together. the sound of the bagpipes, that was a thrilling part of the british army.

>> absolutely. the washington bureau chief for the sunday times of london. are you an englishman or scot? >> i'm an englishman. ends before they start. so your hair passes the needle test. get hair so healthy you shine, with pantene.

"hardball" back after this. there's a famous name

running for governor in georgia. recent polls show him highly competitive. check the "hardball" scoreboard. jason carter, grandson of former president jimmy carter is challenging republican governor nathan deal. according to a new poll, that race is deadly close. deal the governor has 43%. carter the challenger is at 42%. keep your eyes on this one. we'll be right back.

next, let me finish tonight with the dangers of countries coming apart. more "hardball" after this.

let me finish tonight with the what could be the finish of great britain. we may be watching the destruction of britain right now as a significant nation in the world, a familiar and trusted ally of the united states and the world. what will be left when scotland goes its separate wait? will we still call great britain even when it's severed in two? will the part left still deserve the word great? what will become of the british armed force now that a part of it is no longer there because along with the bagpipes will go the regiments that fought alongside the welsh and northern issue because along with the flag of scotland goes the people

back home in scotland who cheered on the british army in world wars and every other fight. i admit to rooting for the union. i feel a bit like hailey mills character in "the parent trap" rooting for her divorced mother and father to get back together. i want the british as our good and reliable ally. what will become of the special relationship once great britain is no longer a country? i fear this pattern in the world and fear the chronic talk in canada of the french speaking province of quebec going its own way, belgium flems and walloons. i read of the bask and catalons pushing to separate from the spain and worry occasionally where we're headed here in the united states as we see the erosion of english as our agreed upon common lang. nothing is harder than to unite across the barriers of language. so we'll get up tomorrow and learn the results from scotland. if they vote to secede, do not cheer. the times we're entering into, differences played up, common ties played down, division

looming as the all-purpose -- that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. all in with chris hayes" starts right now. çhris hayes >> tonight on all in -- >> sending arms to so-called moderate islamic rebels in syria is a fool's errand and will only make isis stronger. >> over objection, the senate approves the president's plan to train and arm syrian rebels. >> i want to thank leaders in congress for the speed and seriousness with which they approach the this issue. >> we'll look at what the phrase moderate rebels really means. plus new disturbing details surface about the latest nfl player accused of domestic abuse and child abuse. >> after she was physically assaulted he took a shoe and threw it at their 18-month-old child. >> and scotland goes to the polls to decide whether to leave the united kingdom. >> that's not a tattoo.