:00:00. > :00:00.All day, they've been making the final pitches for your vote.
:00:00. > :00:27.Leave, or Remain in the European Union.
:00:28. > :00:34.On the eve of the European referendum, reaction to the last
:00:35. > :00:39.of the big TV debates and analysis of the whole campaign.
:00:40. > :00:42.And I'll be asking Scotland's new Chief Scientific Advisor
:00:43. > :00:53.about the frustrations of mixing science with politics.
:00:54. > :00:57.So the final set-piece debate of the Euro-referendum finished
:00:58. > :01:00.just a couple of minutes ago, over on Channel Four.
:01:01. > :01:03.Packed full of politicians, celebrities and opinion formers,
:01:04. > :01:06.Remain had Alex Salmond, Leave had Lord Lawson,
:01:07. > :01:08.and each side even had an Admiral backing their case.
:01:09. > :01:14.Actress Sheila Hancock wanted to stay, broadcaster
:01:15. > :01:16.Selina Scott wanted to go and, representing the many
:01:17. > :01:29.still undecided, the model Katie Price said she was confused.
:01:30. > :01:32.In a moment, our panel will tell us Iain what they thought of it all.
:01:33. > :01:44.The clock is ticking. Under ten hours before we decide the nation's
:01:45. > :01:53.future. The programme featured an invited audience of high-profile
:01:54. > :01:55.antagonists for remain and leave. Inevitably, the first publicly
:01:56. > :01:58.discussed, immigration. I think immigration reform is needed. I
:01:59. > :02:01.think you also have do have a sensible debate about us, and I
:02:02. > :02:04.think there is a big difference here. If you are talking about
:02:05. > :02:08.things like what is going to happen with the economy, and people might
:02:09. > :02:12.disagree with the bank of England governor, OK, they are fine to
:02:13. > :02:15.disagree with him. I don't think you can accuse the Bank of England
:02:16. > :02:19.governor of lying or pitting people against other people. What the
:02:20. > :02:23.league campaign have done is Bush lies and also picked human beings
:02:24. > :02:30.against other human beings, that is what wrong and wrong and is just not
:02:31. > :02:33.British. And Widdecombe. The tone I think on both sides has sometimes
:02:34. > :02:37.been unfortunate, and I think everybody would admit that and
:02:38. > :02:40.should. And at the same time, we cannot run away from the fact that
:02:41. > :02:48.control of our borders is a massive issue for Britain. And controlling
:02:49. > :02:54.the borders doesn't mean closing the borders, doesn't mean saying all
:02:55. > :02:59.immigration is bad. What control of the borders means is that we,
:03:00. > :03:05.Britain, are not obliged to accept somebody just because various free
:03:06. > :03:08.movement from the EU, but we, Britain, can decide the terms on
:03:09. > :03:12.which we accept people, the numbers of people that we accept, and we
:03:13. > :03:17.also have the ability to do the opposite as well, which is to
:03:18. > :03:20.require people to go back. The debate ranged across issues like
:03:21. > :03:26.sovereignty, security, and whether we'd be better or worse off once we
:03:27. > :03:32.know the result of the referendum. The EU is this country's biggest
:03:33. > :03:35.customer. 44% of our exports go to them. Now, I'm not saying, by the
:03:36. > :03:41.way, that if we left the European Union, it would be Armageddon. Thank
:03:42. > :03:44.God for that! We wouldn't be able to say that. But think about the nature
:03:45. > :03:49.of the deal we have at the moment. We are part of this big trading law,
:03:50. > :03:52.half a billion people. 44% of our exports go to them, and the average
:03:53. > :03:57.of the export of each of the other 27 member states 5%. So, they are
:03:58. > :04:02.much more important customers to us than we are to them. Look, I think
:04:03. > :04:07.the main issue is not the economy, the economy will be fine. The main
:04:08. > :04:19.issue... The main issue is where we are going to be a self-governing
:04:20. > :04:25.democracy. It is a myth, you don't need to be in a trade agreements to
:04:26. > :04:33.trade. We do far more trade with the rest of the world... The programme
:04:34. > :04:41.heard from a self-described 83 roles voting for remain even though most
:04:42. > :04:45.support leave. My mother and father lived through two world wars that
:04:46. > :04:54.were started in Europe. The second one cost 51 million lives, but now,
:04:55. > :05:04.look at the situation we are in now. Problems are global. Surely we can
:05:05. > :05:13.solve those problems about a united than if we close ourselves down and
:05:14. > :05:17.shut our eyes and hate. The sovereignty question you asked, the
:05:18. > :05:21.another wake of describing that is democracy. The idea of a democracy
:05:22. > :05:26.is that the people of the country are in control Panel. That doesn't
:05:27. > :05:30.mean 100% control because opening in life and negotiation. But their
:05:31. > :05:35.least in a democracy the people we elect get to make those comprises in
:05:36. > :05:39.the EU it is done behind closed doors. In deals with big business,
:05:40. > :05:48.by people that know one here ever elected. After tonight, of course,
:05:49. > :05:50.it's over to you. Polling places are open at eight in the morning and
:05:51. > :05:52.stay open until 10pm tomorrow night. Well, I'm joined now by three
:05:53. > :05:55.journalists to talk about the debate and look back over the campaign
:05:56. > :05:57.as a whole. Herald columnist, Iain Macwhirter,
:05:58. > :05:59.Scottish political reporter for Press Association Lynsey Bews
:06:00. > :06:14.and the Sunday Herald's Paul, you have a chance to watch the
:06:15. > :06:19.whole debate. What did you think? While there any highlights for you?
:06:20. > :06:23.Low lights, and it was styled as the last debate, the final debate, and
:06:24. > :06:27.thank God for that. It was a very low rent affair, I have to say.
:06:28. > :06:32.Given that the stakes are so high, do we really need to know what Katie
:06:33. > :06:37.Price thinks, or Peter Stringfellow? It just seems to be one hour of
:06:38. > :06:41.shouting, and didn't move the debate forward in any way at all. Quite a
:06:42. > :06:45.big difference between tonight's Wembley production? -- last night's
:06:46. > :06:50.I don't think anyone watch the debate and change the mind. No one
:06:51. > :06:53.is going to change their mind on what they saw tonight on Channel 4.
:06:54. > :06:56.It was entertaining but not politics, symptomatic of the
:06:57. > :07:00.campaign we have had over the last few weeks. There was plenty of
:07:01. > :07:04.passion on the debate, lots of personalities. At this stage in the
:07:05. > :07:08.game, how likely is any of that is to sway people? I guess what they
:07:09. > :07:12.were going to try and do was bring in lots of different voices to put
:07:13. > :07:16.forward lots of different arguments, and lots of different opinions. Now
:07:17. > :07:19.if you are sitting at home undecideds, hearing that kind of
:07:20. > :07:24.swirl of arguments between all these people is probably going to leave
:07:25. > :07:29.you at anything like that you started in. I think as well we have
:07:30. > :07:31.so many TV debates, or TV interviews, where audiences have
:07:32. > :07:35.been able to ask questions, and I think that people are probably tired
:07:36. > :07:39.of that, now, and I think most people have properly made up their
:07:40. > :07:44.ninth by now. Do you think, Ian, that we can assume that those people
:07:45. > :07:49.who haven't yet decided how they will vote tomorrow will probably opt
:07:50. > :07:52.for the devil they know? Well, that's the gist of the opinion polls
:07:53. > :07:57.in the last few days. Certainly I agree with the other members of the
:07:58. > :08:03.panel, I don't think this will have changed anyone's minds, particularly
:08:04. > :08:08.bearing in mind Zhou television, where you forget the arguments, use
:08:09. > :08:13.your as many weird characters in politics impossible, in some form of
:08:14. > :08:17.attempts to get some interest. I don't think it's going to win anyone
:08:18. > :08:22.over, there's not a lot more to be said. We look back at this campaign
:08:23. > :08:27.and we will see that it was basically last Friday, the Brexit
:08:28. > :08:31.poster, and the murder of Jo Cox which rebooted the campaign if you
:08:32. > :08:36.like. We have seen a very dramatic drift to remain since then, in the
:08:37. > :08:40.opinion polls, and I think that will carry VAT morrow. Our defining a
:08:41. > :08:47.moment, do you think, was Jo Cox's killing in this campaign? Well be
:08:48. > :08:52.put back in the weeks and months to come, how defining do think that
:08:53. > :08:56.was? I am reluctant to try and draw obvious political conclusions, and
:08:57. > :09:01.are not willing to do that just now, but I think everybody realises it
:09:02. > :09:09.was an epic moment, in the campaign. A pivotal moment. We aren't drawing,
:09:10. > :09:15.we aren't saying... We aren't saying what caused her death, we don't know
:09:16. > :09:19.it will have any direct political connotations, but it was clearly a
:09:20. > :09:25.monumental moment. You mentioned that Nigel Farage poster which
:09:26. > :09:28.happened on the same day. It got quite a critical reception,
:09:29. > :09:34.obviously, from some people. Do you think it might have chimed with
:09:35. > :09:39.other people, though? . I think it actually summed up the campaign.
:09:40. > :09:43.David Cameron wanted this referendum to be on the deal that he negotiated
:09:44. > :09:46.with the EU. That's never happened, it was completely ignored, and it's
:09:47. > :09:52.ended up as a referendum on immigration and border control. One
:09:53. > :09:56.issue that the remain side ever wants to discuss. It was a racist
:09:57. > :10:00.poster, it was nasty, it was horrible, but it was symbolical of
:10:01. > :10:05.the debate we have had in the last two months, and I think Ian is
:10:06. > :10:13.right, the combination of that and the sad events down south probably
:10:14. > :10:18.forced some people to question the country we are living in now, the
:10:19. > :10:21.nasty place it has become. You say it has been nasty, do you think the
:10:22. > :10:28.tone of the campaign has been north and south of the border the same? I
:10:29. > :10:32.think north of the border it has been a very fractious debate, and I
:10:33. > :10:35.think in Scotland we just haven't seen the debate straight up in the
:10:36. > :10:41.same way. -- south of the border area has been fractious. Is that
:10:42. > :10:46.simply because all the party leaders are remain? I think that is part of
:10:47. > :10:48.it, yes, but I'd also think as Paul was saying and immigration is really
:10:49. > :10:52.the very contentious, very controversial issue which has been
:10:53. > :10:58.debated south of the border, where you could say arguably they are more
:10:59. > :11:01.affected by issues related to immigration stop in Scotland, we
:11:02. > :11:06.don't have the same situation on immigration, and actually, it is
:11:07. > :11:09.allowing the remain side to put the positive case forward for
:11:10. > :11:14.immigration in Scotland saying we need my grades in Scotland. The
:11:15. > :11:17.think it has been different here? Gailey, and immigration rates are
:11:18. > :11:21.very different issues north and south of the border, and for
:11:22. > :11:24.historical reasons, people do not get worked up over these issues, in
:11:25. > :11:28.Scotland, in the same way they do in England. That isn't to do with the
:11:29. > :11:33.Scottish DNA, not that the Scots are some weight immunity racial
:11:34. > :11:38.prejudice, it is simply a product of history, the fact that as Lindsay
:11:39. > :11:41.says immigration has been much less here, Scotland also has died he is a
:11:42. > :11:47.nation of migrants, populated half the planet during the age of the
:11:48. > :11:50.British Empire, and it is more difficult, therefore, to be hostile
:11:51. > :11:56.towards migrants when you are migrants yourself. Also, we have a
:11:57. > :11:59.different political culture, broadly speaking the parties are united on
:12:00. > :12:01.issues like this, even the Conservatives will that there have
:12:02. > :12:04.been interesting moments in the campaign, one of them has been
:12:05. > :12:09.seeing all the Scottish parties standing in the same platform.
:12:10. > :12:12.During the independence referendum, by contrast was a much more
:12:13. > :12:16.civilised affair, I think everyone would accept that because it
:12:17. > :12:19.wouldn't degenerate into a row about raises Anu immigration, but what we
:12:20. > :12:23.were all saying there, the great mistake was standing on a platform
:12:24. > :12:28.with the Tories. Why has that not backfire for the SNP? I think it is
:12:29. > :12:31.because... Well, they will have do answer that question, true, but I
:12:32. > :12:35.think it will cause them problems in the future, and I think of the
:12:36. > :12:38.rhetoric they have been using over this campaign will cause some
:12:39. > :12:44.problems in future, in other referendum campaigns, we don't want
:12:45. > :12:46.to separate off from people, we want to be together with the neighbours
:12:47. > :12:56.across the border, we want to stay in this union, for a nationalist
:12:57. > :12:59.Nicola Sturgeon has been quite surprising. One of the strange
:13:00. > :13:09.moments was that Rotella on the Thames with both sides trading
:13:10. > :13:13.insults. You were an the European file meant fishing committee, you
:13:14. > :13:20.attended very few meetings, you're a fraud, Nigel Farage! Slightly weird,
:13:21. > :13:26.this moment, for you come up all quiz yellow it was weird for
:13:27. > :13:30.everyone. It's been entertainment, not politics, and I feel like over
:13:31. > :13:35.the past few months certain politicians have taken to into the
:13:36. > :13:38.swamp instead of reaching the stars which you would hope politicians
:13:39. > :13:42.would do. I don't think we will look back in a couple of years' time on
:13:43. > :13:46.this referendum with any pride, it has been a low point for the
:13:47. > :13:53.country. Come Friday, will this all be settled, one way or another, or
:13:54. > :14:01.is this just the end of the first chapter? If we knew what the outcome
:14:02. > :14:07.is! Depending on the outcome even if there is a remain vote, does it
:14:08. > :14:11.settled things? I think there will be great political fallout from this
:14:12. > :14:16.one particularly in the Conservative Party and people would be intensely
:14:17. > :14:19.at the remain vote and the effect on David Cameron's feature, and of
:14:20. > :14:21.course if David Cameron goings, who will step up, who will take over as
:14:22. > :14:32.leader? Will it be Boris Johnson? I don't
:14:33. > :14:38.think it will be Boris Johnson, even if it is Brexit. He is not terribly
:14:39. > :14:42.popular in the party itself. If it is remain, two things, essentially,
:14:43. > :14:46.it will accelerate the Tory leadership crisis, and the campaign
:14:47. > :14:52.will begin on Friday because David Cameron has said he is not going to
:14:53. > :14:56.stand in 2020. This will be very divisive. I think George Osborne has
:14:57. > :15:00.been heavily criticised by both sides during the campaign, not least
:15:01. > :15:07.for the punishment budget, which was the high point of Project Fear. That
:15:08. > :15:11.antagonised a lot of people. I think his future is problematic. I don't
:15:12. > :15:15.think he is going to be a contender for the Tory leadership. My bet
:15:16. > :15:19.would be on somebody like Theresa May, who is actually a Eurosceptic
:15:20. > :15:24.but has managed to remain loyal during this. She has kept her powder
:15:25. > :15:28.dry. And finally, the Scottish dimension, if there is a leave vote,
:15:29. > :15:34.might there be a second independence referendum? Does anyone have the
:15:35. > :15:37.stomach for that? There will be people in the party who argue that
:15:38. > :15:44.that is a material change. Anyone who knows her will know that she
:15:45. > :15:50.thinks that the referendum is a distraction when it comes to the
:15:51. > :15:53.Indy referendum. Of course, her predecessor has a more nuanced view.
:15:54. > :15:57.I think he's more impatient and would like to see it sooner rather
:15:58. > :16:00.than later. I think we have had enough referendums. Anybody who
:16:01. > :16:03.calls another referendum within the next five years will pay the
:16:04. > :16:04.penalty. We will leave it there for the moment.
:16:05. > :16:07.Well, no matter what the outcome, Scotland will still be a part
:16:08. > :16:11.Unless of course we plan on floating off somewhere.
:16:12. > :16:14.We may be on the very edge of the European Union,
:16:15. > :16:17.but it's clear from our history that we have always had strong links
:16:18. > :16:19.to the rest of the continent, as our social affairs correspondent,
:16:20. > :16:33.They came, they saw and they conquered large swathes of Scotland.
:16:34. > :16:36.If not providing the first links between Scotland and Europe, the
:16:37. > :16:44.Vikings, whose heritage is celebrated each year in Shetland,
:16:45. > :16:48.wore one of our earliest partners. They were far from merely warring
:16:49. > :16:51.raiders. Their arts and crafts marked them out as a cultured race
:16:52. > :16:58.and they left small but significant reminders of their presence, such as
:16:59. > :17:03.these tombs in Govan Parish Church, indelible marks of a people who
:17:04. > :17:07.arrived here and became Scots. By the early medieval period, Scots
:17:08. > :17:10.were beginning to look back across the North Sea, to forge a new
:17:11. > :17:19.relationship with Europe. It was based on trade, merchanting, and the
:17:20. > :17:22.exportation of soldiers. They were certainly men of violence, and the
:17:23. > :17:26.connection was like an umbilical cord. They eventually came to an end
:17:27. > :17:31.because of the movement west of Scotland, into the empire, and
:17:32. > :17:36.especially towards the Atlantic. Before that happens, John Knox, the
:17:37. > :17:39.father of Scotland's Reformation, brought Calvinist thought from
:17:40. > :17:44.Europe to change the face of religion here. But Scots continued
:17:45. > :17:47.trading with Catholic Poland, and at the start of the 17th century there
:17:48. > :17:52.were so many Scots they are that King James the sixth was asked to
:17:53. > :17:58.stem the flow of this disreputable, disruptive and dissolute systems.
:17:59. > :18:02.But the Scots in Gdansk were such an important trading community that
:18:03. > :18:07.they formed their own suburbs which contemporary maps show as new
:18:08. > :18:10.Scotland. Today, Poland is the fourth most important European
:18:11. > :18:13.market for Scots whiskey. Exports are vital for the industry and have
:18:14. > :18:19.been growing for more than a century. If you look at one of the
:18:20. > :18:24.famous figures, like Tom Mercure, in the late 19th century, who began the
:18:25. > :18:28.export drive for Scottish whiskey, he got us into markets all around
:18:29. > :18:35.the world, including Europe. Poland, after joining the EU, that has grown
:18:36. > :18:40.in the market for Scotch whiskey. It has grown by double digits every
:18:41. > :18:44.year since they joined. Scotland and Europe remain interconnected, bound
:18:45. > :18:47.by history. However we vote tomorrow and whatever the outcome. It is just
:18:48. > :18:51.a shame that we watching some of the events they are from the outside.
:18:52. > :18:53.She's an expert on gravitational waves, and has been hailed
:18:54. > :18:58.Professor Sheila Rowan from Glasgow University is Scotland's
:18:59. > :19:00.new Chief Scientific Advisor, the third woman now
:19:01. > :19:04.It's a position that has been vacant for 18 months, during which time
:19:05. > :19:07.the Scottish Government has come under fire from some
:19:08. > :19:09.in the scientific community for imposing a moratorium both
:19:10. > :19:15.on fracking and the growing of GM crops.
:19:16. > :19:17.So how will Professor Rowan approach thorny issues like these?
:19:18. > :19:25.Earlier today, I went along to ask her.
:19:26. > :19:32.It is a lofty title, chief scientific adviser. What do you hope
:19:33. > :19:36.to achieve? There are two main things that are a core part of the
:19:37. > :19:40.role that I'm interested in achieving, one of which is
:19:41. > :19:43.advocating for science, feeding into policy inside government, and I
:19:44. > :19:51.think the other side of that is also advocating for science generally.
:19:52. > :19:56.Outside government, helping people to understand how beneficial science
:19:57. > :20:00.can broadly be in society, to the economy, to people in general. And
:20:01. > :20:04.as you say a big part of the role will be advising the government on
:20:05. > :20:08.scientific issues, presumably in your discussions with them you have
:20:09. > :20:12.spoken about what might happen if they do not take your advice? I
:20:13. > :20:17.think the main thing is to make sure that available to the government, to
:20:18. > :20:22.ministers, is scientific evidence as part of the decision-making process.
:20:23. > :20:24.And the decision-making process is broader when formulating policy.
:20:25. > :20:28.There are a lot of things that have to be taken into account and I feel
:20:29. > :20:32.that my job is to make sure that scientific evidence is one of those.
:20:33. > :20:36.The best scientific evidence that can be made available. When you look
:20:37. > :20:41.at the government's moratorium on the growing of GM crops, is that a
:20:42. > :20:47.political decision? Not really based on a scientific decision? There were
:20:48. > :20:54.decisions made before I took up the role and it is difficult to know the
:20:55. > :20:57.background of how existing things were formulated. The government did
:20:58. > :21:03.have scientific advisers in place at that point. There is an advisory
:21:04. > :21:09.structure. I am looking forward to going forward from here, at the
:21:10. > :21:16.breadth of policies, looking to see how scientific evidence creeps in.
:21:17. > :21:20.But when you look at the evidence, there has been no substantiated
:21:21. > :21:25.evidence that food from GM crops have been less safe than foods from
:21:26. > :21:31.Norman GM crops so it looks like the scientific evidence does not back up
:21:32. > :21:34.the government's position. -- non-GM crops. Looking at the evidence that
:21:35. > :21:40.exists is something we have not had a chance to do yet. Again, across
:21:41. > :21:44.the breadth of policy going forward, in all areas, that is something I
:21:45. > :21:49.look forward to doing. The other hot potato for the government is
:21:50. > :21:54.fracking. If the decision, whether or not to Frank, was based purely on
:21:55. > :22:00.science, what would you advise? That is an area where I look forward to
:22:01. > :22:05.reviewing the state of the evidence. -- whether or not to frack. I will
:22:06. > :22:11.look at whether the best evidence is available. But there must be
:22:12. > :22:20.evidence out there already and you must already have a view. I don't
:22:21. > :22:24.think my opinion, as the adviser it is important for me not to put
:22:25. > :22:28.forward personal views, but to look at the evidence it is out there and
:22:29. > :22:33.use that to feed into policy decisions. The SNP's manifesto
:22:34. > :22:37.commitment was to no fracking in Scotland unless it could be proved
:22:38. > :22:41.beyond doubt that there was no risk. Can science do that? It is a good
:22:42. > :22:51.question. An interesting question. What science can do is provide
:22:52. > :22:54.evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It is an interesting one. In different
:22:55. > :22:59.situations, scientific facts can point in different directions and it
:23:00. > :23:04.is important to do the best to gather those. I think it is an
:23:05. > :23:08.important question to ask. But science cannot prove beyond doubt
:23:09. > :23:13.that there is not a risk. Again, proving negatives is an interesting
:23:14. > :23:20.thing. Risk, of course, is a whole area in itself. Risk in any area,
:23:21. > :23:24.not just in this area, but risking health, risk in broad environmental
:23:25. > :23:29.issues, it is one that I think other people do not have a good grasp of
:23:30. > :23:35.in terms of risk. In any evidence he goes forward, understanding risk and
:23:36. > :23:39.balance of probabilities, that is important. Does it frustrate you
:23:40. > :23:42.when the public tends to make a decision based on gut instinct
:23:43. > :23:50.rather than maybe a level-headed evaluation of risk, and the fact?
:23:51. > :23:52.What is important is both not just to gather evidence, because I think
:23:53. > :24:00.that is an important thing about this role, to help to translate what
:24:01. > :24:04.can be quite complicated background, quite contacted facts, and try to
:24:05. > :24:07.condense those down and make them understandable. I think
:24:08. > :24:12.communication is an important part of the role, both inside and outside
:24:13. > :24:16.government. The post has been vacant for quite a while before you took it
:24:17. > :24:21.up. Do you think there is a concern among your peers that science and
:24:22. > :24:25.politics just do not mix? I think the post has been vacant for a while
:24:26. > :24:28.but my understanding is that the government sought to fill the
:24:29. > :24:34.position. It was not that there was any inactivity. We should be clear
:24:35. > :24:40.that there are are other Chief scientific advisers, for health and
:24:41. > :24:44.for rural affairs and the environment. There is the Scottish
:24:45. > :24:46.scientific advisory Council, and again there has been a scientific
:24:47. > :24:54.advisory structure in place throughout that time. I think there
:24:55. > :24:59.is happiness within the community that the post has been filled and I
:25:00. > :25:05.look forward to the outward facing part of this role, to increasing
:25:06. > :25:09.those links with the scientific community, back into the system,
:25:10. > :25:13.across the advisory structure going forward. But if you look across
:25:14. > :25:17.these big issues, GM crops and fracking over the past year or so,
:25:18. > :25:21.do you think there is a frustration within the scientific community that
:25:22. > :25:25.perhaps politicians are looking beyond the facts and just thinking
:25:26. > :25:29.about winning votes? Again, I can speak for the external community on
:25:30. > :25:37.that point. But you don't have to get elected every five years and
:25:38. > :25:39.they do. My job will be very specifically to make sure that the
:25:40. > :25:43.best scientific evidence is available. Thank you for your time.
:25:44. > :25:45.And good luck in your role. Still with me here in the studio
:25:46. > :25:58.are Iain Macwhirter, The Professor there are refusing to
:25:59. > :26:03.be drawn on fracking or GM crops. I wonder how important her input will
:26:04. > :26:06.be on these issues in the coming months? The SNP government seems to
:26:07. > :26:10.have made up its mind. Well, it has taken them 18 months to select her,
:26:11. > :26:15.and she seems to be the ideal candidate. She does not seem to have
:26:16. > :26:19.any views at all and she does not seem very interested in getting any
:26:20. > :26:26.scientific advice to the government, which has, let's admit, not been
:26:27. > :26:30.very responsive to nominally independent advice, even from Select
:26:31. > :26:36.Committees or from advisers. The decision will be made politically.
:26:37. > :26:39.Nicola Sturgeon is in the driving seat. The government has always said
:26:40. > :26:46.that they like to make their decisions based on the science but
:26:47. > :26:50.they really do. On the issue of GM crops and fracking, the government
:26:51. > :26:53.have said that they refuse to make a decision on the grounds of
:26:54. > :26:59.scientific evidence. With fracking, it is not going to take the absence
:27:00. > :27:03.of any obvious risk from this kind of unconventional gas extraction, it
:27:04. > :27:07.is not going to take that as a reason for holding up if it feels
:27:08. > :27:12.that politically it cannot get it through Parliament. As things stand,
:27:13. > :27:15.I don't think that it is a starter. Do you think the politics and
:27:16. > :27:19.science will inevitably be an unhappy mix? I think the important
:27:20. > :27:23.thing with this post holder is that she is allowed to do her job
:27:24. > :27:27.unfettered by politics. We've seen examples in Westminster where a
:27:28. > :27:32.government advisers, particularly legal advisers have been pressured
:27:33. > :27:36.into giving certain responses. I think she has to just issue reports,
:27:37. > :27:40.and then to the ministers and in the ministers make the decision, based
:27:41. > :27:44.on politics as well, obviously. The big one coming up is fracking and we
:27:45. > :27:47.have this moratorium and the research report is being
:27:48. > :27:51.commissioned. Clearly this new scientific adviser will have a role
:27:52. > :27:56.in that but once she has her say, it is a matter for the government. And
:27:57. > :28:01.as Ian says, I don't think they have got the numbers there, even if there
:28:02. > :28:05.was a government will for fracking. I guess at the end, a responsible
:28:06. > :28:08.government has to take public opinion into account. Even if the
:28:09. > :28:14.science does not support what they think. Well, they do, absolutely,
:28:15. > :28:20.and they said that is what they did on the decisions they made an GM is
:28:21. > :28:23.crops. -- GM crops. We saw the Professor grappling with the
:28:24. > :28:29.definition of beyond reasonable doubt there and as Paul said, she
:28:30. > :28:32.presents a report full of scientific facts, and surely it is then for the
:28:33. > :28:37.government to decide whether or not that has been proved beyond
:28:38. > :28:43.reasonable doubt in their eyes. And then put forward a policy to ban or
:28:44. > :28:47.allowed fracking. Professor Rowan is the third chief scientific adviser
:28:48. > :28:51.to be a woman. Do you think it is important for girls to see a woman
:28:52. > :28:56.in a role like that, to help boost the number of girls taking up
:28:57. > :29:01.science? Yes. I think it is good. I hope that she has not been selected
:29:02. > :29:07.purely on the grounds of gender but I think it is very good for women.
:29:08. > :29:12.It sounds very patronising to put it this way and I hesitate to speak
:29:13. > :29:17.about it, really, because it seems self-evidently the case that
:29:18. > :29:20.obviously people should, there should be equal numbers of people
:29:21. > :29:24.with the will to go into these kind of sciences. Do you think it is
:29:25. > :29:31.significant? When so few women take up science as a career? I think it
:29:32. > :29:36.is good to see another woman in a leadership role in such a prominent
:29:37. > :29:43.position. I think that it is great. Thanks all of you for coming in this
:29:44. > :29:44.evening. We will see what happens after tomorrow's vote. And that is
:29:45. > :29:47.it for tonight. We're off the air tomorrow night
:29:48. > :29:49.for the Referendum coverage We'll be back on Monday, usual time,
:29:50. > :29:53.with all the reaction After months of campaigning
:29:54. > :30:05.and debating, every vote in the EU referendum
:30:06. > :30:09.will soon have been cast. As the counts
:30:10. > :30:12.come in from across the UK, we'll be here to discuss
:30:13. > :30:14.the outcome, keeping you updated throughout the night until the very
:30:15. > :30:18.last set of votes is declared. And we finally discover the result
:30:19. > :30:24.of this historic referendum.