Scotland's Top Ten Battlegrounds Referendum Documentaries

In just seven months' time, we're going to be asked

to decide our country's future.

The implications of this, not just for ourselves

but on our children and our grandchildren are huge.

We're being told this is a once in a lifetime choice.

People are coming on and saying, "How will this affect me directly?"

..about what this actually means for their country.

What are the things that will really matter when you decide how to vote?

Are you ready to make the decision of a lifetime?

All the referendum surveys have been pretty consistent so far.

The Better Together campaign's in the lead,

with the Yes Scotland campaign making some progress.

Scottish voters, young and old, men and women, rich and poor -

we're now being inundated with information

and a demand that we make a decision about all our futures.

But many of us have yet to decide how to vote

and some of us clearly don't have a clue.

-Will everything be in Gaelic?

-Will we get Irn Bru on tap?

-Will there be free fish suppers?

OK, I'm exaggerating a bit!

But many of the undecided say they simply don't have enough

information or understanding to help them pick out what matters

from all the ideas and arguments swirling around their heads.

So we've had a bright idea and carried out our own poll.

No, no, wait! Come out from behind the sofa,

it's not #johncurtice time again, I promise.

We've conducted our own exclusive survey, asking you to tell us

which of these ten fundamental issues will matter most when

deciding whether to vote Yes or No.

And the good news is, this will be a politician-free zone.

Tonight, you'll hardly hear from the usual old chorus

of yea and naysayers.

Instead, you're going to hear from ten independent experts.

They're political scientists, defence analysts, economists,

people with no political axe to grind.

They deal in hard facts that may help you

when you're deciding how to cast your vote.

It's as unprecedented for us as it is for the politicians

but we can approach it from a neutral perspective,

as people who are impartial and try to inform the debate.

Our idea of being impartial is if we can be equally rude to both sides

and annoy both sides equally, we're probably doing all right.

You'll also be hearing from what we hope you'll agree

are trustworthy voices whose job at the BBC is to take

the pulse of the nation and keep us properly informed.

Trying to make sense of the choices, the very major choices

is unlike any other challenge I think we've faced before.

Folk are engaged, they are anxious, they are hungry for information -

really hungry for information. I've never seen anything like it.

We've asked you to rank in order of importance ten key issues

that will be affected by the referendum vote.

At number 10, broadcasting.

The only thing that Ruth Davison worked out

was she didn't say we weren't going to get Doctor Who!

Will I still be able to watch Doctor Who and Strictly Come Dancing?

Will I have to watch endless repeats of River City instead of EastEnders?

Will my license fee go up?

Voters want to know what will happen to the BBC, and more importantly

will we still be able to see the programmes we love?

I think if you live in a relatively rich media environment

as far as broadcasting is concerned, and that is true...

If you live in that rich environment

you are not going to be very happy at the possibility that you are

going to end up with a broadcasting system which is much diminished.

The Yes campaign have said that

if you vote for independence they'll be able to do a wee deal with

the BBC to make sure you carry on getting the TV you want.

Let's see if we can get any insider knowledge.

I thought it would be a rammy about Doctor Who and EastEnders

but it has been slightly at a more elevated level.

On the one hand, you've had the offer of reassurance

about retaining those programmes,

from the SNP. On the other hand, the UK Government place the BBC

in a range of icons alongside the Army and the Health Service

and the welfare state etc and so they stress it as a British icon.

So what would happen to the BBC -

not just its hit programmes, but also the £200 million

Scottish headquarters and all that expensive gear?

What we're told by Alex Salmond is that the assets, the staff

will shift to a Scottish broadcasting service.

The programming they want in Scotland will be available

presumably through some kind of payment, that a licence fee,

similar to the one we've got, will probably be retained in Scotland.

The Yes camp have promised that in the new Scotland, we'll have

a new Scottish broadcaster, designed to meet the needs and desires

of a Scottish audience, without losing any of the shows we love.

This takes us to the heart of the way in which this is independence...

if you like programme is being presented to us

because it really is independence-lite.

The thrust of the White Paper is to say Scotland will become

an independent country but a lot of things will actually be

much the same as they are today, so there is not much to worry about.

Oh, yes, of course. Suppose it makes sense.

Scottish viewers may still be able to watch hit shows like Doctor Who,

Sherlock and Strictly Come Dancing,

but what would happen if the BBC bosses in London decide to

treat a newly independent Scotland as just another foreign customer?

-You know, you should go for somebody local.

-Like who?

If the London BBC drives a hard bargain

and says actually we are going to have a cash price for these

services, what that means, therefore, is a higher licence fee in Scotland.

"Would you feck off?!"

It needn't be a colossally higher licence fee, but it will be higher.

In their White Paper, the Yes camp stipulate that,

"the licence fee payable in Scotland at the point

"of independence will be the same as in the rest of the UK."

It's one of those areas of uncertainty. All of this is subject

to negotiation. The question whether you pay more on your licence fee is

a pretty hot topic to which we, yet again, cannot provide a clear answer.

So that's what we know about our number 10, broadcasting.

The BBC, like the UK Government,

won't spell out what will be on offer or how they will negotiate

with an independent Scotland until after the referendum.

The game is on!

But a deal probably could be done to make sure

we could all keep being thrilled by the adventures of Doctor Who.

OK, now that we've dealt with our own neck of the woods,

let's look at something that matters a bit more to voters.

At number 9, our relationship with the European Union.

The president of the European Commission,

who the nationalists say doesn't know what he's talking about,

has said this will be treated as a new application.

Can Better Together not just get off the scaremongering

and embrace the idea that this nation is a European nation?

Will we still be part of Europe?

Couldn't the EU just say no to us?

If we're independent, would we get lots of lovely subsidies?

The Better Together campaign have warned that an independent

Scotland would have to apply to be accepted as a new member

of the European Union.

Yes Scotland say this ignores the fact that Scotland as part of the

UK has already been accepted, and the rest would be straightforward.

The intriguing thing about the European Union, is that what is being

offered by the SNP as being... that we would not be solely leaving the

United Kingdom, we would be joining international institutions such as

the European Union, and NATO and the UN in our own right, as Scotland.

So, would an independent Scotland be

welcomed into the European Union or made to jump through lots of hoops?

I think this is a real concern. What we have in this debate

is three players, not just the UK and Scotland government

but the EU government. Because the SNP government...

They have a double desire. The first is to become an independent country,

and then, become an independent country within the EU.

The Yes camp say Scotland would be able to simply walk right in

and sit right down.

I believe that Scotland would have to apply for admission

and I think it would be very difficult to keep them out.

The reason being that an independent Scotland would be

recognised by the United Kingdom Government.

I don't think that's correct to say that, because it's not up to them.

The decision will be made by the other countries of the EU,

the EU Commission and the EU Parliament.

If Scotland were recognised by the United Kingdom,

there is no reason why all the other 27 member states

should not recognise Scotland as being independent.

What we need to see is not SNP politicians getting up and saying,

"Yeah, we can do this because our lawyer says this, that and the other."

We need someone in the EU to make a clear statement.

And the statement so far from the EU

in my view is clear that they are going to have to reapply.

There have already been warning signs that obstacles may lie ahead

in Europe for an independent Scotland.

TRANSLATION: A region that obtains independence from a member state

of the European Union would be left outside the European Union.

It's good that the Scottish people know that.

It's been suggested that the Spanish government might create

difficulties because the Catalan government is proposing itself

to have a referendum in November of this year about independence,

following the Scottish referendum. Well, the Spanish government is

very unhappy about Scotland becoming independent but they have never

said that they would veto Scottish membership of the European Union.

A lot may depend on how Scotland is viewed by our European neighbours.

Those patriots out there with high blood pressure should look away now!

I don't think really that, if we look at Scotland, the other

countries in the EU care much about Scotland whether it's in or out.

I mean you have a population here

which has less than 1.5% of the EU total.

Contribution to output is only 1.5%.

We are very small and insignificant unit, country.

And I do not understand why anybody in the rest of the EU would care

either way about Scotland.

Oh, that's fighting talk round my way!

So would an independent Scotland be blocked from joining

the European Union?

That I find almost unthinkable

because it's just in nobody's interest,

including the other member states'.

It wouldn't be in the interest of the United Kingdom or any other

country to create a big hole in the European internal market.

Tony Blair then went on...

Ah yes, the British and Europe.

UKIP, the UK Independence Party, don't want independence

for Scotland but they're desperate to break the link with Europe.

The United Kingdom has got a really problematic reputation

in Europe just at the moment, because of their grudging membership

looking over their shoulder to the Eurosceptics.

Believe it or not,

in one recent poll, Nigel Farage was voted the top politician in Britain.

The point is, the European Union is letting in poorer

and poorer countries, Romania and Bulgaria. But don't forget that the

European imperialists even want Turkey to join the European Union.

Could we end up with Scotland knocking at the front door of Europe

and the rest of the UK bolting out the back?

On Morning Call we are actually taking a lot of calls about this.

Can I say that people are daunted by it?

They are quite scared about it. They are trying to get a grasp of what

happens in the event of a Yes vote for Scotland? But also afterwards,

Brian, there is the whole issue of where will the rest of the UK sit...

-Yes.

-..in relation to the United Kingdom?

If it's a Conservative government, if it's a Labour government.

There are so many unknowns.

-CHANTING:

-Scum! Scum! Scum! Scum! Scum! Scum! Scum! Scum! Scum! Scum!

If Scotland were to vote to stay in and England were to vote to come out,

you would open the independence question all over again.

The prospect of the UK being outside the European Union and Scotland

being inside the European Union raises no end of complications.

So, at number 9, that was Scotland and EU membership.

We seem set for a bit of a tussle over Europe.

The likelihood is that a deal could be done, though the terms

aren't yet clear.

But will we have a real fight on our hands over how to

protect our wee bit hill and glen?

At number 8, defence.

We are stronger together. Britain, the United Kingdom

and Scotland benefit from the scale and the power and the capability

of our armed forces.

-How would we defend ourselves?

-What kind of army will we have?

What about Trident?

The Yes campaign's White Paper has provided some detail

on what our new defence force would look like.

It's no Dad's Army.

15,000 fighting troops, sleek new fighter jets,

a fleet of frigates, and all for a very affordable £2.5 billion.

It's actually quite misleading because it does not

take into consideration the significant start-up costs

which Scotland will have to bear in terms of a brand-new country.

You know, a new defence research establishment,

an officer training establishment a Ministry of Defence,

an armed forces headquarters, etc. These are very expensive assets

and much of what Scotland can inherit will be simply down to

how effective it can actually negotiate

from the rest of the UK Government.

On defence, we've spoken to two new academic think-tanks.

Their critics suggest they are

either too pro-union or pro-independence.

See if you can work out which is which.

The fact is that Scotland has been a part of the UK.

Scottish taxpayers have contributed towards UK defence

and so I don't think it's a case of London handing over stuff to

Scotland as if it's some charitable exercise.

Let's be absolutely clear here. You know, post-independence,

all military assets, defence assets

will legally belong to the UK Government. You know,

there is no legal obligation on them to negotiate away their assets.

Even if a deal can be done on conventional weapons,

that still leaves a scarily explosive elephant

in the corner of the room that can't be ignored.

Trident, Trident, Trident - that is how people are viewing

the issue of defence ahead of the referendum.

That's as far as they really want to go at the moment

and they are also appreciating the huge negotiating power that Trident

would give an SNP government in the event of a Yes vote.

Except that it appears that it's not on the negotiating table.

It's going to have to go. The timetable might be open to debate

but this is not negotiable,

according to those currently proposing independence.

The Yes camp say getting rid of Trident would save billions

that could be better spent on the kind of defence force

an independent Scotland would actually need.

What isn't in doubt is the determination

to say goodbye to Trident.

-It is an extraordinarily powerful article of faith...

-Yes.

-..for nationalists.

-Gets the biggest applause at the party conference,

-doesn't it?

-Yeah. The Scottish National Party.

It's almost as entrenched as their belief in independence itself.

So does a vote for independence really mean an end for Trident?

I think it overwhelmingly likely that Trident

will be evicted from Scotland.

I think it's almost unthinkable, in actual fact, that, politically,

they would get away with

actually kind of backtracking on this commitment.

There is nowhere that the UK Government

could actually move Trident to.

There's only three ports, naval ports in the UK that could be

possible venues for Trident and all three of them

are unsuitable for a wide variety of reasons.

They are too close to civilian populations,

too close to gas plants, etc.

Of course we can't have our English friends waking up one morning

to find that they're living next door to a nuclear arsenal.

Imagine how scary that would be!

I think that many Scottish citizens might be a wee bit disappointed

with precisely how Trident negotiations pan out.

We have maybe kind of six to seven years

of a time frame to get rid of nuclear weapons.

Trident will remain on the Clyde for the next 20 years

being leased by the UK Government

until it's ready to actually be moved.

So that's clear then.

Somewhere between six and 20 years before Trident goes.

Of course, nuclear weapons aren't much of a defence

against our most likely enemies these days.

You can't really launch a Trident missile at a guy with

a home-made bomb coming at you in a Range Rover.

I think that it may make perfect sense to argue that

Scotland would be more secure in terms of maybe being less of

a terrorist target if it was to be independent but, of course, that'd

very much depend on what Scotland did as an independent state.

If an independent Scotland was no longer on the terrorist hit-list,

would it leave the back door open for the bad guys to

sneak through and attack England?

In the eventuality of Scotland becoming independent, there's

a high probability that there will be a border constructed

between Scotland and England and there will be border checks

and this has been articulated to me from the highest levels of the MOD.

Did he just say what I thought he said?

There's a high probability that there will be a border

constructed between Scotland and England.

Yes, he did.

An actual former Secretary of Defence told me that this

is more than likely to actually happen cos the rest of the UK

simply cannot be open to any sort of vulnerabilities, you know,

if there are huge intelligence gaps between Scotland and England.

The idea of manned border posts is the most hysterical scaremongering.

I consider it grossly irresponsible.

I suppose it's not surprising

that, when it comes to life and death issues like security

and defence, even academics can end up having a wee bit of a rammy.

Well, the Yes campaign, anything that they disagree with,

they call it scaremongering.

It seems to be their favourite word in their lexicon

so I wouldn't find that surprising.

But this has come from the highest levels in the MOD.

So at number 8, that's defence.

We didn't find many mainstream voices agreeing that there would be

a need for armed border posts between an independent Scotland and

the Auld Enemy, but if we do vote for independence it's accepted that

Scotland could create a new defence force to defend our interests.

Right, let's get away from all that conflict

and out into the fresh air to look at something that,

according to our poll, matters a bit more to you as voters.

At number 7, energy.

These resources are unparalleled in the European continent.

We have 25% of Europe's tidal power potential,

25% of its offshore wind potential and 10% of its wave potential.

That's not bad for a nation with less than 1% of Europe's population.

Will I still be paying through the nose for my heating?

What will we do if everything goes on the blink?

Will all this green energy cost us an absolute fortune?

We keep the lights on and ourselves warm not,

as our friends down south might think, by relying on a diet

of chips, Irn Bru and a brisk walk to the pub, nice as that sounds,

but increasingly by harnessing the power of nature.

The Scottish Government has often presented

Scotland as the green capital of Europe.

There is no doubt that this

Government in particular has been very ambitious

particularly in its renewables agenda and what is intriguing about

that is that that ambition and the level of action that's gone with

it has taken place in the context of Scotland having very little

powers, constitutionally, over energy. Under the current devolution

system, energy is a power that's mainly reserved to the UK level.

But how much control can the Scottish or the British Governments

really have over our power supplies?

Surely it's the big private energy companies making the big

decisions that affect us most.

What is bugging people at the moment, clearly, is

issues around cost of living, particularly the cost of fuel bills

which, roughly speaking, ten years ago, were half of where

they are now. They remain very high and they continue to rise,

and people sense that they're being ripped off by energy companies

that are deeply unpopular and so they want

that issue to be addressed.

That is the one strong message that, whenever we raise the subject of

energy, that's the one message that is coming across loud and clear.

There is also an appreciation that alternatives have to be found

but all I can say is never mention the word wind farm on Morning Call

-because the phone lines...

-The remainder of the programme

-will be dominated by that.

-And the rest of the week if not the month.

I mean, that is really what gets people's...people going on this.

They appreciate, yes, there has to be an alternative energy source

found - that makes sense. But when it comes to actually how we

go about doing it, that's where the real divisions actually lie.

Perhaps you should take a leaf out of David Cameron's book

and get rid of this green crap, as he prosaically called it.

The SNP have vowed to make Scottish energy 100% renewable by 2020,

while, down south, David Cameron's enthusiasm for all things

green seems to be fading. He's the on the right, by the way.

If the UK government were to decide that it no longer wanted to

incentivise renewable energy,

that it no longer was committed to renewable energy,

I think the Scottish Government would have to look for its own

solutions and find its own resources to promote

the kind of renewables agenda that it wants to promote.

So an independent Scotland might help save the planet

but what will it mean for one's leccy bill?

This is an issue they're having to deal with day in, day out

because, as Douglas was explaining,

just about the rapid increase and the cost and the way that

it's actually hitting every family's budget.

Striking a balance between providing affordable energy and

protecting the environment will be a challenge whoever ends up in charge.

Fuel poverty is not just an energy issue, it's a social policy

and there are clear indications that the Scottish Government,

certainly an SNP-led Scottish Government,

I would expect a government in Scotland of any political

colour would want to address that as part of a broader social package in

line with the principles of social democracy

and the broader social agenda.

So that's energy at number 7.

The Yes camp are saying a vote for independence means

I can afford to keep the heating on and we can still save the planet.

The other side, well,

they're saying we're better sticking together to keep warm

and maybe we can only afford to worry about the environment

once the economy is back on its feet.

It's all well and good keeping the house warm and the lights on,

but who's moving in next door?

At number 6 - immigration.

We can have this open border, but they say, at the same time,

that they want to have our immigration policy that is

widely divergent from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

He must think people in Scotland button up the back!

There will be no border controls

between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK!

VOICES MERGE Will we suddenly be swamped

with folk from eastern Europe?

Will they take all our jobs and houses?

Will Scotland feel like a completely different country?

In January, we were supposed to be overrun

by hungry hordes of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants.

So far, I've only seen this wee guy called Victor.

I don't come to rob your country.

I come to work and you opened the border, I come to work,

to make money, to go home.

And after the British tabloids had a go at him,

even wee Victor has disappeared off the radar.

Happy New Year, everybody!

I don't know... Goodbye.

I think it's quite easy for populist elements

of the media or party politics to whip up concerns

around immigration. Immigrants don't create unemployment generally.

They don't create a particularly high burden on the welfare state.

And I don't think we can say that immigration is

responsible for a decline in social cohesion.

The cross-party consensus says we need migrants.

Demographics suggest we've got an ageing population.

We need young to come in, bring all the vibrancy that they do,

to take on jobs, set up businesses. That's what grows the economy

and there's lots of evidence that migrants do precisely that.

But the public aren't entirely convinced.

People see it in general terms, erm, one wonders whether

they're quite as welcoming in individual terms

when immigration comes perhaps to...to confront them.

The Yes camp say that, in an independent Scotland,

people from overseas who want "to work and live" here

would be actively encouraged to come.

What they propose in the White Paper is not radical.

I think what they propose is sensible,

where you attract people that have high levels of skill,

high levels of earning ability

and indeed these people, in a sense, drive the economy

and if we look at the demography of Scotland,

you know, labour force is not really set to grow very much,

so immigration will be important expanding the labour force.

Down south, they're not quite so welcoming.

We're not like that here... are we?

Whenever we have this debate about immigration or about race relations,

we're always told that Scotland is a very tolerant, welcoming society,

that we've always been grateful for people coming in,

we're all integrated and, honestly, I think that is a load of baloney.

I don't think we have the problems of racism

that exists south of the border

and it may well be simply because

we have a much smaller immigrant population.

I think the difference between Scotland and England,

or Scotland and the UK, really boils down to the fact

that there has been less immigration in Scotland

than the UK for a significant period of time.

So the fact that it's more tolerant is because there's been less of it.

That doesn't mean tolerant in the future with more immigration, right?

So this will be a hurdle they may have to jump later.

We may not vote for politicians like that lovely guy Nick Griffin,

but let's not get too smug.

It's much easier to sell the benefits of labour migration where an economy

is facing very tangible acute shortages in particular sectors

or particular regions or for particular types of occupations.

And it's much easier as well to sell labour migration

when it's about recruiting highly-skilled migrants.

I think it's much more difficult for governments to make a case

or to sell the case for recruiting semi- or low-skilled migrants.

One recent poll found that more than half of you want to restrict

the number of immigrants coming in from other EU countries.

And that same survey claimed that 1 in 10 Scots

want a total ban on immigration.

If it were to become a major issue of concern,

for example, in the context of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration,

then I would expect the SNP to back off from its claims about

a more liberal immigration policy,

or at least not to emphasise those in the election campaign,

because it clearly wouldn't be a vote winner.

Immigration may not be very popular amongst some people,

but the message has to be sent across, and that is important,

and it's going to be something that, one way or the other,

we're going to have live with into the future whether

we're an independent Scotland or whether we remain part of the UK.

That's Immigration at number 6.

Most politicians are agreed that, whether independent or not,

Scotland will need more immigrants, provided they come here to work.

That's despite the fact that some of you

may not be too keen on the idea at all.

We're now halfway through our top ten.

Our poll found that, at number 10, you've put Broadcasting

and whether we'll still be able to see EastEnders.

At number 9, whether or not an independent Scotland

would be welcomed into the European Union.

At number 8, how we could still defend ourselves without Trident

and the might of the British Army.

At number 7, how our electricity supply

might be affected by independence.

And, at number 6, how we would welcome more immigrants

even when the rest of the UK seems to be saying enough is enough.

But so far, despite the best efforts of independent experts,

economists and other academics and, to be honest, the media,

lots of you still seem desperate for clear pointers on how to vote.

I understand, don't get me wrong, I really understand

why people want precision, because they have to give a precise answer.

They have to place their mark against one choice or the other.

Precision is impossible in politics and it is in this one.

Maybe it's all the fault of the polls.

No, not those nice people from Poland.

I'm talking about the annoying eejits who keep ringing up to ask,

"How are you planning to vote?"

It's partly the responsibility of opinion pollsters

asking questions, such as, "Would you vote for independence

"if you were £500 a year better off?" which seems a rather trivial reason

for changing the whole constitution of the country.

But it just shows that people are not getting convincing arguments.

Exactly!

At least our exclusive poll makes it clear

which of these ten fundamental issues matter most to you.

At number 5, Currency.

We can make both an independent Scotland work for the benefit

of the Scottish people and we can have the institutional arrangements

in keeping the pound work for the Scottish people as well.

The Nationalists say they want to re-enter a sort of currency union,

where they'll be told what to do in terms of tax and spending.

Now, that's a very funny form of independence.

VOICES MERGE Are we keeping the pound or whit?

Will we have to join the Euro?

Why don't we just get our own currency?

I don't know about you, but I know as much about currency

as I do about the Scottish cricket team. Sorry, lads!

Not many people understand monetary policy

and how interest rates fluctuate and so on,

but when it comes down to the currency in your pocket,

more importantly, the currency in your bank account,

what you earn, what your pension's in, this does matter to people.

-Even

-I

-understand that, when it comes to currency,

there are three basic options.

One is that Scotland stays part of the pound. That has the advantage

that you don't need to change your money when you cross the border,

and that trading relationships that we've got used to

will pretty much, er, continue without any added cost.

It might be the simplest way of moving things forward,

but isn't it a wee bit odd for a newly-independent country

to want to share its currency with the Auld Enemy

and have Scottish interest rates set by the Bank of England?

People just cannot quite get their heads round this.

How can we call ourselves independent and yet still

have this relationship with the Bank of England?

The pound sterling is what we all recognise.

It's what most of us grew up with. It's how we measure ourselves.

It's how we define ourselves and I think when...

the SNP came out and said that that was their intention,

there was a kind of relaxing of the shoulders!

We thought, "OK, fair enough, but then what?"

And that's when issues very quickly moved on to, as I was saying,

the issues surrounding our relationship with the Bank of England.

Isn't the Bank of England's first responsibility to England...?

Er, I mean, the UK!

Well, the rest of the UK! Not Scotland anyway!

-Good morning, Mr Carney.

-Good morning. How are you?

When the new Governor popped up to say hello to our First Minister,

presumably Alex told him it's our pound too, right?

It's as much Scotland's pound as it is the UK's pound

is an attractive slogan, very easy to get, erm...and something that

intuitively everybody in Scotland would say, "Yes, it IS my pound."

However, it's difficult to understand what that means in practice.

The Bank of England has to set interest rate policy

to reflect the capacity of UK taxpayers to support its borrowings.

The duty of care it would have would be to UK taxpayers,

or the remaining UK taxpayers,

and that might not be what would be in Scotland's best interests.

A durable successful currency union

requires some ceding of national sovereignty.

The Yes Scotland and Better Together camps

have both taken comfort from Mark Carney's visit.

Yes Scotland remain confident that a deal can be done on sterling.

Better Together say the Governor's statement

means currency union is "unworkable".

That's it. It's over!

If they won't share sterling with us,

we would still have some alternatives, wouldn't we?

If it proved impossible to share the pound sterling,

on the terms proposed by the Scottish Government,

then the other option might be to establish its own currency.

Our own wee pound! That sounds great!

Or maybe not.

Scotland could launch its own currency.

It would give it absolute power over all the financial levers,

all the fiscal levers that are currently being called for,

and there's nothing to stop it doing that.

The issue for Scotland would be -

how does it get a track record with the money markets?

And that's the critical thing here.

Scotland has to borrow from day one to fund its current spending plans.

To borrow money in the money markets,

you have to have a credit rating.

To get a credit rating, you have to a history in financial management,

prudent financial management.

The Scottish Government's position at the moment

is that it doesn't have a plan B. Sterling is going to work.

But if Scotland isn't allowed to share the pound

with the rest of the UK, and doesn't introduce its own currency,

surely that means there's only one other option left?

The last option is to join the Euro.

A lot of that depends on whether, er...

what conditions the European Union might set

and whether they really believe in these conditions

and would like to force Scotland to stick with them.

There are other countries that seem to have made promises to join

the Euro, but don't seem to have followed through on these promises.

-GUNSHOTS

-The Euro?!

Mmm, I don't think so!

Look what being in the Euro did for the Irish, and the Spanish

and the poor old Greeks!

I suspect that, er, the Scottish Government,

at least in the present circumstances,

would try to avoid going anywhere close to the Euro.

So with currency, our number 5,

it's No to the Euro, and No to our own wee pound.

The Yes camp argue that, when it comes down to it,

the rest of the UK will ultimately see sense about sterling,

and recognise and accept that it's our pound too.

This seems like the right time to consider how our relationship

with our nearest and often far from dearest neighbour might be

affected by a vote for independence.

At number 4 - our relationship with the rest of the UK.

We're better served by having the best of both worlds.

We've got devolution of powers with education and health

and the Scottish Parliament, but we're also part of something bigger.

Am I going to have to show my passport at the border?

Will all British companies leave Scotland?

Will WE become foreigners to the English?

After more than 300 years, we've learned to live

with our friends in the South, through good times...

..and bad.

When we come to this issue of relations with the rest of the UK,

we're coming to a debate about the fundamental nature of the offer

from the SNP and the Scottish government. The offer itself is

a pragmatic one, the offer is one of building upon the existing

powers of the Scottish Parliament

and arguing a fundamental case, as the SNP put it, that decisions

for the people of Scotland are best taken by those who live here.

We may struggle to understand one another...

POLICEMAN: Where you going?!

..but it doesn't help when our friends down south won't tell us

what they'll do if we decide to break away.

I think it's natural that the No camp wouldn't tell us what they're

going to do in the event of a Yes vote. They don't want to countenance

the scenario where Scotland does vote in favour of independence.

I think if Scotland does vote in favour of independence, I think

south of the border, the rest of the UK would quite rapidly swing into

line and be quite pragmatic about negotiating a future settlement.

Because it would simply be in the interest of the rest of the UK

to make sure this then transitions smoothly.

Maybe so, but when push comes to shove isn't it likely that

both governments will always put their own people's interests first?

Even if that means putting the other side's nose out of joint.

The really big issue is that

so much of the Scottish Government's independence prospectus

involves a continuing relationship with the rest of the UK.

One of the old chestnuts in the debate about Scottish independence

going back years and years and years, is the idea that a physical border

would be set up and you'd need a passport to get to England.

I think that's pretty much unthinkable.

So the chances are that you won't have to show a passport to a soldier

with a gun each time you want to nip down to Carlisle for a wee bit of shopping.

If we were in a situation where two states shared an island

with all sorts of economic interdependencies, with all sorts of

security interdependencies,

with all sorts of social and family relationships

across the border, there... there is a pretty strong expectation

that the instinct of both governments would be an amicable one.

Amicable?

After all those arguments and rows and votes and referendums?

Or is it referenda?

Ach, you know what I mean.

Of course we are going to have a UK election in May 2015,

which will be slap-bang in the middle of that period

when the two governments would be negotiating

the terms of independence if we vote Yes this September.

A change of government

could really change the tone of those negotiations.

Despite all the disagreements and rhetoric...

Thank you very much.

..most reasonable people think things could be settled...

well, reasonably.

The current situation where the UK government has agreed with

the Scottish government that whatever the result

of the referendum, they will abide by it and seek to implement

the views of the Scottish voter,

is a quite remarkable one.

And I think it testifies to - if we do vote Yes -

to a relationship between the rest of the UK and Scotland, which would

be a bit different to relationships between most independent states.

If Scotland does vote Yes, the relationship between the UK

and Scotland would not be the same as that between the UK

and Bulgaria, or the UK and Zimbabwe.

That's if it's a Yes vote. But what happens if the majority of us

decide to vote No?

Will everything remain the same?

What I'm hearing is that people are becoming increasingly

frustrated because they are not getting the answers.

-We had the publication of the white paper in November...

-If No, then what?

..here we are in February, they've been asking for it

between then and now. they're not getting the answers

and they are becoming increasingly frustrated.

One of the really interesting questions in this debate

is what No means.

We know an awful lot more now about what Yes might mean, following

the white paper, we are not yet that clear on what No might mean.

The Yes camp warn that a No vote could mean yet more

years of Tory rule despite the fact that at the last general election

we only elected one Tory MP.

That's one out of 59!

Aspiration, opportunity.

These are words, these are dreams.

In the event of a substantial

and sort of resounding victory for the No campaign,

because there's such a small proportion of the electorate that

votes for the Conservative party in particular, I think we would

see a sense of frustration that...

that the UK government as a whole

wasn't effectively representing the spread of Scottish public opinion.

So at number 4 in our chart, that's our relationship

with the rest of the UK.

Most impartial observers don't think we'd end up

with a border checkpoint.

The real challenge may come if Scotland votes No

and that means continuing to have key decisions made for us

hundreds of miles away, by politicians we haven't elected.

For the hundreds of thousands of Scots living in poverty,

arguments about constitutional politics don't matter

quite as much as what's going to happen to their benefits.

At number 3 - welfare.

The key thing for me in terms of welfare is the ability to design

a welfare system that suits Scotland's needs and circumstances.

I think the Scottish people need to know. Very simple question.

There's more spending in Scotland on welfare than there is in other parts of England, some parts of England.

Question is, how are you going to cover that gap?

Will my housing benefit go down?

Will I still be paying for all those skivers on the broo?

What happens if I'm too sick to work?

You might think of it as a badge of honour,

an emblem of a caring society,

or as a burden on hard-working taxpayers,

but our welfare system

is one of the most important and expensive challenges to our future.

The Department for Work and Pensions spends over £15 billion

in Scotland on welfare.

It's a massive, massive, erm...

budget. We spend slightly more per head in Scotland than is the case

in the UK as a whole, about £300 or £400 per head more.

Most of our welfare bill goes on care for the elderly

and the disabled

but the political row about welfare centres on the low-paid

and the unemployed.

The Scottish government and the broader Yes campaign

have hinted that an independent Scotland would produce and run

a very different kind of welfare system.

A very different kind of social security system

that would be more egalitarian and more generous, perhaps, on expenditure.

Older people, actually, have been pretty much protected

since the beginning of the recession, against cuts in their real

living standards, whereas what has happened in terms of welfare cuts

has mainly affected the working poor.

That's those of us who work for low or minimum wages

and still need a bit of help from the state.

The working poor are at the heart of the welfare debate.

These are people who are working

but actually are classified as poor using the standard definition.

And these people, I think perhaps justifiably, resent...

people who are not working, receiving generous levels of benefits.

Down south, you hear lots of angry talk about dole scroungers

and welfare cheats.

We like to think we're more tolerant up here

but would that change if we were in charge of the money?

The story we tell about ourselves in Scotland is, we will do more,

particularly than the English. Those arguing for independence

want to pick up on a sense that we've got in Scotland

that we're different.

particularly on this social democratic aim of

providing a safety net. The welfare system is seen as a means of

supporting people who are less well off, unfortunate, fallen on hard times.

Well, there is a huge amount of rhetoric, isn't there?

Of course, all these things depend upon

the economic situation in the country.

I think it's... very easy for people to promise jam tomorrow.

I think it is intriguing that the SNP

and Scottish government go a certain degree on welfare benefits

but they don't go wholly down the road of... of making them

particularly more generous than is currently the case.

They are cautious and I think they are cautious because I think they know

that perhaps the views on welfare - while differing somewhat -

are not that, perhaps, radically different

than is the case elsewhere.

The Scots are more willing to be generous through the welfare system,

but not by much.

Your concerns about welfare pushed it to number 3 on our chart.

The latest Social Attitudes Survey found that, like our English

cousins, many of us don't want the unemployed to get higher benefits.

But you're even more concerned to make sure that our old folk

are looked after in an uncertain future.

At number 2 - pensions.

On oil, they're worried, on public service jobs, they are alarmed

and on pensions, they're panicking.

We have more ability to protect the people of Scotland

in terms of social provision.

I don't want to have to work till I'm 90.

Will I even get a pension?

If we keep paying for all the old'uns, what's left for the young'uns?

Scotland has even more people of pensionable age than

the rest of the UK and we're all living longer.

So our pension bill is set to go through the roof, just as we're

being asked to decide whether or not to opt for independence.

State pension costs just over £6 billion at the moment

and our receipts from income tax are just over £10 billion.

So you're putting a pretty large chunk of your main source of...

of revenue towards erm, state pensions.

Both the Yes camp and Better Together promise that

pensions will be protected.

Why are they so desperate to keep the oldies on side?

Pensioners in Scotland are a disparate bunch.

They are of different outlook, they are of different origins,

they have different incomes, they have different social status

but they have one big thing in common,

which is that they tend to vote.

To keep the old ones sweet,

all the politicians have made virtually identical commitments.

What we put in place in this government is this triple lock.

The triple lock is an essential part of the contract of society with pensioners.

Nobody should be in any doubt about my commitment to the triple lock on pensions

The triple lock is a promise to pensioners

that their pensions - their state pensions -

will grow by the biggest of 2.5%

the rate of growth of earnings,

the rate of growth of prices. Whichever is

the biggest of these three will be applied to the state pension.

This guarantee means committing an ever-increasing chunk

of our precious national revenues to keeping pensioners happy.

That is quite a big promise because if the economy isn't

doing very well, then earnings won't be growing very fast and

pensions will be taking a bigger and bigger proportion of the tax pot.

Now, this is a promise that the Institute for Fiscal Studies in

London has argued is very difficult for the UK government to make.

I guess the same argument must apply to the Scottish government.

And it's not just state pensions

that keep politicians on their toes when chasing the grey vote.

I suspect a lot of the concern, if you poll people,

and they put pensioners very high up in their list of concerns

-is because of what has happened with private pensions.

-That's right.

Absolutely. That's the one message that we are getting -

people want guarantees. They need to know how this is going to work

and how much it's going to cost.

That's pensions at number 2.

Fretting about the pound in your granny's purse

is really just part of a far bigger concern.

In fact, it's the one issue set to dominate how many of us

ultimately will decide how to cast our vote in September.

Before we reveal our number 1, here's a reminder of our poll

asking which of these ten fundamental issues

matter most when you decide whether to vote Yes or No.

At number 10, broadcasting.

At number 9, our relationship with the European Union.

At number 8, defence.

At number 7, energy.

At number 6, immigration.

At number 5, currency.

At number 4, our relationship with the rest of the UK.

At number 3, welfare.

At number 2, pensions.

And this week and for all foreseeable weeks

between now and September 18,

it's far and away the most important issue for voters in the referendum.

And your number 1 - the economy.

SALMOND: Our message today is give Scotland the economic tools

so's that we can do the job to build a successful independent nation.

The idea we've been held back is simply nonsense.

The Yes camp's promise is that a vote for independence

means throwing off the shackles and taking control of our own destiny.

Even critical economists say that may be possible.

The problem is, no-one can be sure how long it would take.

As an economist it's extremely difficult to argue

that Scotland couldn't be independent.

It could, and it could pay its way.

For me it comes down to how long will it take

to get from where we are now,

to the world that says, "I am fundamentally better off."

I don't know whether that is a short-term, medium-term or long-term outlook.

The problem with economics is that it's not an exact science,

and anyone looking for straight answers is in for a disappointment.

I have had a long history in economic forecasting

and I have become increasingly reluctant over the years

to make assertions about where the Scottish economy might be going.

There might be the possibility of substantial growth

over and above what the UK can manage in the future.

Er, looking at the past, the evidence isn't there,

but, you know, things might massively change

and I would be the last person

to make a confident prediction about that. Things could change.

No wonder they call economics "the dismal science".

We want certainty, we want to know exactly what the consequences

of independence would be, but I am afraid we can't know that.

We know for sure that pretty much every economic forecast ever done

has ultimately been wrong,

it's not been 100% accurate. You cannot project with 100% accuracy.

Ah, yes. Remember, virtually every economist failed to predict

the banking meltdown back in 2008

and all the economic chaos that followed.

The other context to this debate I think it's vital to recognise

is that it comes six or so years

into the most profound economic problems

that any of us have experienced.

Er, and we are still a long way from getting through them,

so there is insecurity with which people will approach this vote.

I make an unqualified apology for all of the distress

that has been caused.

I would not wish there to be any doubt about that.

Mmm. Bankers' apologies are probably about as much use

as economists' predictions on what might happen

if we vote Yes or No on Independence.

Those in the Don't Know camp

I think are now feeling that they have got...

There is an awful lot of information out there.

Probably some are beginning to panic

that "How on earth am I going to make up my mind?",

to decide not just for the short-term but also for

the long-term and for their children and their children's children.

Did you ever feel like you might be sitting in on a game of cards

where everything you own is at stake but you haven't been told the rules?

It's about bargaining again, and it's, you know, what are the debts,

what are the assets, what is the currency, all of this...

All of these issues are going to come into the bargaining

post the referendum and I think it's a question

of not revealing your hand, it's a game of poker.

It's not democracy.

The thing about poker is,

not even the experts can really tell you how the cards will fall.

Reporting from the front line of public opinion

means bumping up against all that public anxiety.

People are interested in the issues,

but I think quite genuinely from what people are telling me

is that they are getting fairly fed up

with the roundabout nature of the debate.

People want a sum done as to whether they would personally be better off,

they want somebody to do the sum for them.

It's an understandable request because they are anxious

and concerned and fretful and determined to get to the facts,

but yet we can't offer a sum, as journalists.

If journalists can't help with the sums, surely the economists can?

The UK has about, or will have by 2016,

about £1.6 trillion worth of debt.

It's a massive amount of debt.

It's more than it's had in peacetime, I think,

for centuries, almost.

Now, this is bad as far as an independent Scotland is concerned,

because it means that if it takes a share of that debt,

then it will be large relative to the ability

of the Scottish economy to produce.

Question is, what share would it take?

The thing is, we simply can't know what our share of the UK's debt

or its resources would be

until after the votes in September are counted.

And even then, only if it's a Yes.

Scotland currently gets its share of North Sea revenues

through a mechanism called the Barnett formula which basically

means the UK Exchequer transfers funds to Scotland.

It gets a per-capita share of the North Sea tax revenues.

An independent Scotland

would receive 90% of the North Sea tax revenues

accruing to the UK Exchequer to date.

I think this means that if we vote for independence

we'd get nearly all of the oil money.

But we'd no longer get any money from London.

At the moment the value of the North Sea tax revenues

are about the same as the transfer payments the UK Exchequer makes.

But as they start to decline, then the value of North Sea tax revenues

to Scotland are less than the value of the transfer payments currently

being made by the UK Exchequer to the Scottish government.

What I think THIS means is that an independent Scotland

may find that oil in the future may bring in less money

than we currently get for staying in the Union.

I think. I told you this was hard!

A lot of these issues are very technical, very complex,

and while we can offer some information,

we can't offer, on a lot of them, full certainty,

so I do feel that a lot of the electorate

find the whole business pretty confusing.

Yeah, you said it. When all's said and done,

it seems to come down to one simple question.

Will I be better or worse off in an independent Scotland?

One of the things that comes out of surveys quite regularly

is that people are desperate for clarity.

For information, for facts

about the consequences of independence.

And of course, both sides will try to give their version of facts,

but it's very difficult for either campaign

to be to be crystal clear, because there is so much uncertainty.

The politicians select the information that suits them

for one side or another and a lot of these things are just unknowable.

We're talking about the future,

what might happen under certain circumstances,

and so everybody is free to make up their own version of it.

So we're all free to make up own our minds! Hurrah!

Wouldn't it be nice if somebody'd just tell you how to vote?

We are in a situation, I think, where people have had

all of the arguments set out, they have listened to them

they have absorbed them or ignored them

and I think on the 18th of September

it will come down to a gut feeling - will I be better off

and will my family be better off given one scenario or the other?

And I think it will be as crude, ultimately, as that.

I don't think we're at that stage yet. I still think that people are

so hungry for information. It's not about trust, this is about facts,

at the stage that we are sitting at at the moment. That may change.

I think it's down to the message that the two sides are conveying,

which side, which of those two competing offers

you find the most trustworthy and the most, frankly, credible.

And if and when the temperature rises

and the political point-scoring turns nasty...

For too long we have let the SNP claim ownership of patriotism.

The Saltire is the flag of a proud nation,

not the symbol of one political party.

The Conservative party, mired in their negativity,

will always say "No, you cannae." Well, yes, we can.

Let's bear in mind that it could all be a lot worse.

Whether one chooses to cast a Yes vote or a No vote,

either way it's something of a leap of faith.

And in a sense it might come down to trust.

Who do you trust to represent your interests, Scotland's interests?

It's really important to stress the distinctiveness of this process,

the fact that the UK government have taken a pragmatic approach,

they have allowed through the Edinburgh Agreement

a transfer of power to make sure that a referendum

could be held in Scotland that would be legal,

and that internationally is very significant

and is much commented on by visitors to Scotland,

by international commentators.

This is not a war, this is a democratic process.

Still feeling a bit overwhelmed by all the political posturing,

all the facts and claims and counter-claims?

What I think the general public would like is a sense

that it can take control of the debate itself a little bit more.

It's confusing, isn't it? Hopefully you've learned a wee bit more

about what will matter on Referendum Day.

And now you can push the politicians for more and better answers

in the seven months we have left before 18th September.

I suspect to an extent that citizens will look beyond

the heat and passion of the political debate

and look to opportunities to discuss these issues

among their peers, in their communities, and to an extent

beyond the reach of formal politics,

and I think that is a good thing.