22/06/2016 Scotland 2016

All day, they've been making the final pitches for your vote.

Leave, or Remain in the European Union.

On the eve of the European referendum, reaction to the last

of the big TV debates and analysis of the whole campaign.

And I'll be asking Scotland's new Chief Scientific Advisor

about the frustrations of mixing science with politics.

So the final set-piece debate of the Euro-referendum finished

just a couple of minutes ago, over on Channel Four.

Packed full of politicians, celebrities and opinion formers,

Remain had Alex Salmond, Leave had Lord Lawson,

and each side even had an Admiral backing their case.

Actress Sheila Hancock wanted to stay, broadcaster

Selina Scott wanted to go and, representing the many

still undecided, the model Katie Price said she was confused.

In a moment, our panel will tell us Iain what they thought of it all.

The clock is ticking. Under ten hours before we decide the nation's

future. The programme featured an invited audience of high-profile

antagonists for remain and leave. Inevitably, the first publicly

discussed, immigration. I think immigration reform is needed. I

think you also have do have a sensible debate about us, and I

think there is a big difference here. If you are talking about

things like what is going to happen with the economy, and people might

disagree with the bank of England governor, OK, they are fine to

disagree with him. I don't think you can accuse the Bank of England

governor of lying or pitting people against other people. What the

league campaign have done is Bush lies and also picked human beings

against other human beings, that is what wrong and wrong and is just not

British. And Widdecombe. The tone I think on both sides has sometimes

been unfortunate, and I think everybody would admit that and

should. And at the same time, we cannot run away from the fact that

control of our borders is a massive issue for Britain. And controlling

the borders doesn't mean closing the borders, doesn't mean saying all

immigration is bad. What control of the borders means is that we,

Britain, are not obliged to accept somebody just because various free

movement from the EU, but we, Britain, can decide the terms on

which we accept people, the numbers of people that we accept, and we

also have the ability to do the opposite as well, which is to

require people to go back. The debate ranged across issues like

sovereignty, security, and whether we'd be better or worse off once we

know the result of the referendum. The EU is this country's biggest

customer. 44% of our exports go to them. Now, I'm not saying, by the

way, that if we left the European Union, it would be Armageddon. Thank

God for that! We wouldn't be able to say that. But think about the nature

of the deal we have at the moment. We are part of this big trading law,

half a billion people. 44% of our exports go to them, and the average

of the export of each of the other 27 member states 5%. So, they are

much more important customers to us than we are to them. Look, I think

the main issue is not the economy, the economy will be fine. The main

issue... The main issue is where we are going to be a self-governing

democracy. It is a myth, you don't need to be in a trade agreements to

trade. We do far more trade with the rest of the world... The programme

heard from a self-described 83 roles voting for remain even though most

support leave. My mother and father lived through two world wars that

were started in Europe. The second one cost 51 million lives, but now,

look at the situation we are in now. Problems are global. Surely we can

solve those problems about a united than if we close ourselves down and

shut our eyes and hate. The sovereignty question you asked, the

another wake of describing that is democracy. The idea of a democracy

is that the people of the country are in control Panel. That doesn't

mean 100% control because opening in life and negotiation. But their

least in a democracy the people we elect get to make those comprises in

the EU it is done behind closed doors. In deals with big business,

by people that know one here ever elected. After tonight, of course,

it's over to you. Polling places are open at eight in the morning and

stay open until 10pm tomorrow night. Well, I'm joined now by three

journalists to talk about the debate and look back over the campaign

as a whole. Herald columnist, Iain Macwhirter,

Scottish political reporter for Press Association Lynsey Bews

and the Sunday Herald's Paul, you have a chance to watch the

whole debate. What did you think? While there any highlights for you?

Low lights, and it was styled as the last debate, the final debate, and

thank God for that. It was a very low rent affair, I have to say.

Given that the stakes are so high, do we really need to know what Katie

Price thinks, or Peter Stringfellow? It just seems to be one hour of

shouting, and didn't move the debate forward in any way at all. Quite a

big difference between tonight's Wembley production? -- last night's

I don't think anyone watch the debate and change the mind. No one

is going to change their mind on what they saw tonight on Channel 4.

It was entertaining but not politics, symptomatic of the

campaign we have had over the last few weeks. There was plenty of

passion on the debate, lots of personalities. At this stage in the

game, how likely is any of that is to sway people? I guess what they

were going to try and do was bring in lots of different voices to put

forward lots of different arguments, and lots of different opinions. Now

if you are sitting at home undecideds, hearing that kind of

swirl of arguments between all these people is probably going to leave

you at anything like that you started in. I think as well we have

so many TV debates, or TV interviews, where audiences have

been able to ask questions, and I think that people are probably tired

of that, now, and I think most people have properly made up their

ninth by now. Do you think, Ian, that we can assume that those people

who haven't yet decided how they will vote tomorrow will probably opt

for the devil they know? Well, that's the gist of the opinion polls

in the last few days. Certainly I agree with the other members of the

panel, I don't think this will have changed anyone's minds, particularly

bearing in mind Zhou television, where you forget the arguments, use

your as many weird characters in politics impossible, in some form of

attempts to get some interest. I don't think it's going to win anyone

over, there's not a lot more to be said. We look back at this campaign

and we will see that it was basically last Friday, the Brexit

poster, and the murder of Jo Cox which rebooted the campaign if you

like. We have seen a very dramatic drift to remain since then, in the

opinion polls, and I think that will carry VAT morrow. Our defining a

moment, do you think, was Jo Cox's killing in this campaign? Well be

put back in the weeks and months to come, how defining do think that

was? I am reluctant to try and draw obvious political conclusions, and

are not willing to do that just now, but I think everybody realises it

was an epic moment, in the campaign. A pivotal moment. We aren't drawing,

we aren't saying... We aren't saying what caused her death, we don't know

it will have any direct political connotations, but it was clearly a

monumental moment. You mentioned that Nigel Farage poster which

happened on the same day. It got quite a critical reception,

obviously, from some people. Do you think it might have chimed with

other people, though? . I think it actually summed up the campaign.

David Cameron wanted this referendum to be on the deal that he negotiated

with the EU. That's never happened, it was completely ignored, and it's

ended up as a referendum on immigration and border control. One

issue that the remain side ever wants to discuss. It was a racist

poster, it was nasty, it was horrible, but it was symbolical of

the debate we have had in the last two months, and I think Ian is

right, the combination of that and the sad events down south probably

forced some people to question the country we are living in now, the

nasty place it has become. You say it has been nasty, do you think the

tone of the campaign has been north and south of the border the same? I

think north of the border it has been a very fractious debate, and I

think in Scotland we just haven't seen the debate straight up in the

same way. -- south of the border area has been fractious. Is that

simply because all the party leaders are remain? I think that is part of

it, yes, but I'd also think as Paul was saying and immigration is really

the very contentious, very controversial issue which has been

debated south of the border, where you could say arguably they are more

affected by issues related to immigration stop in Scotland, we

don't have the same situation on immigration, and actually, it is

allowing the remain side to put the positive case forward for

immigration in Scotland saying we need my grades in Scotland. The

think it has been different here? Gailey, and immigration rates are

very different issues north and south of the border, and for

historical reasons, people do not get worked up over these issues, in

Scotland, in the same way they do in England. That isn't to do with the

Scottish DNA, not that the Scots are some weight immunity racial

prejudice, it is simply a product of history, the fact that as Lindsay

says immigration has been much less here, Scotland also has died he is a

nation of migrants, populated half the planet during the age of the

British Empire, and it is more difficult, therefore, to be hostile

towards migrants when you are migrants yourself. Also, we have a

different political culture, broadly speaking the parties are united on

issues like this, even the Conservatives will that there have

been interesting moments in the campaign, one of them has been

seeing all the Scottish parties standing in the same platform.

During the independence referendum, by contrast was a much more

civilised affair, I think everyone would accept that because it

wouldn't degenerate into a row about raises Anu immigration, but what we

were all saying there, the great mistake was standing on a platform

with the Tories. Why has that not backfire for the SNP? I think it is

because... Well, they will have do answer that question, true, but I

think it will cause them problems in the future, and I think of the

rhetoric they have been using over this campaign will cause some

problems in future, in other referendum campaigns, we don't want

to separate off from people, we want to be together with the neighbours

across the border, we want to stay in this union, for a nationalist

Nicola Sturgeon has been quite surprising. One of the strange

moments was that Rotella on the Thames with both sides trading

insults. You were an the European file meant fishing committee, you

attended very few meetings, you're a fraud, Nigel Farage! Slightly weird,

this moment, for you come up all quiz yellow it was weird for

everyone. It's been entertainment, not politics, and I feel like over

the past few months certain politicians have taken to into the

swamp instead of reaching the stars which you would hope politicians

would do. I don't think we will look back in a couple of years' time on

this referendum with any pride, it has been a low point for the

country. Come Friday, will this all be settled, one way or another, or

is this just the end of the first chapter? If we knew what the outcome

is! Depending on the outcome even if there is a remain vote, does it

settled things? I think there will be great political fallout from this

one particularly in the Conservative Party and people would be intensely

at the remain vote and the effect on David Cameron's feature, and of

course if David Cameron goings, who will step up, who will take over as

leader? Will it be Boris Johnson? I don't

think it will be Boris Johnson, even if it is Brexit. He is not terribly

popular in the party itself. If it is remain, two things, essentially,

it will accelerate the Tory leadership crisis, and the campaign

will begin on Friday because David Cameron has said he is not going to

stand in 2020. This will be very divisive. I think George Osborne has

been heavily criticised by both sides during the campaign, not least

for the punishment budget, which was the high point of Project Fear. That

antagonised a lot of people. I think his future is problematic. I don't

think he is going to be a contender for the Tory leadership. My bet

would be on somebody like Theresa May, who is actually a Eurosceptic

but has managed to remain loyal during this. She has kept her powder

dry. And finally, the Scottish dimension, if there is a leave vote,

might there be a second independence referendum? Does anyone have the

stomach for that? There will be people in the party who argue that

that is a material change. Anyone who knows her will know that she

thinks that the referendum is a distraction when it comes to the

Indy referendum. Of course, her predecessor has a more nuanced view.

I think he's more impatient and would like to see it sooner rather

than later. I think we have had enough referendums. Anybody who

calls another referendum within the next five years will pay the

penalty. We will leave it there for the moment.

Well, no matter what the outcome, Scotland will still be a part

Unless of course we plan on floating off somewhere.

We may be on the very edge of the European Union,

but it's clear from our history that we have always had strong links

to the rest of the continent, as our social affairs correspondent,

They came, they saw and they conquered large swathes of Scotland.

If not providing the first links between Scotland and Europe, the

Vikings, whose heritage is celebrated each year in Shetland,

wore one of our earliest partners. They were far from merely warring

raiders. Their arts and crafts marked them out as a cultured race

and they left small but significant reminders of their presence, such as

these tombs in Govan Parish Church, indelible marks of a people who

arrived here and became Scots. By the early medieval period, Scots

were beginning to look back across the North Sea, to forge a new

relationship with Europe. It was based on trade, merchanting, and the

exportation of soldiers. They were certainly men of violence, and the

connection was like an umbilical cord. They eventually came to an end

because of the movement west of Scotland, into the empire, and

especially towards the Atlantic. Before that happens, John Knox, the

father of Scotland's Reformation, brought Calvinist thought from

Europe to change the face of religion here. But Scots continued

trading with Catholic Poland, and at the start of the 17th century there

were so many Scots they are that King James the sixth was asked to

stem the flow of this disreputable, disruptive and dissolute systems.

But the Scots in Gdansk were such an important trading community that

they formed their own suburbs which contemporary maps show as new

Scotland. Today, Poland is the fourth most important European

market for Scots whiskey. Exports are vital for the industry and have

been growing for more than a century. If you look at one of the

famous figures, like Tom Mercure, in the late 19th century, who began the

export drive for Scottish whiskey, he got us into markets all around

the world, including Europe. Poland, after joining the EU, that has grown

in the market for Scotch whiskey. It has grown by double digits every

year since they joined. Scotland and Europe remain interconnected, bound

by history. However we vote tomorrow and whatever the outcome. It is just

a shame that we watching some of the events they are from the outside.

She's an expert on gravitational waves, and has been hailed

Professor Sheila Rowan from Glasgow University is Scotland's

new Chief Scientific Advisor, the third woman now

It's a position that has been vacant for 18 months, during which time

the Scottish Government has come under fire from some

in the scientific community for imposing a moratorium both

on fracking and the growing of GM crops.

So how will Professor Rowan approach thorny issues like these?

Earlier today, I went along to ask her.

It is a lofty title, chief scientific adviser. What do you hope

to achieve? There are two main things that are a core part of the

role that I'm interested in achieving, one of which is

advocating for science, feeding into policy inside government, and I

think the other side of that is also advocating for science generally.

Outside government, helping people to understand how beneficial science

can broadly be in society, to the economy, to people in general. And

as you say a big part of the role will be advising the government on

scientific issues, presumably in your discussions with them you have

spoken about what might happen if they do not take your advice? I

think the main thing is to make sure that available to the government, to

ministers, is scientific evidence as part of the decision-making process.

And the decision-making process is broader when formulating policy.

There are a lot of things that have to be taken into account and I feel

that my job is to make sure that scientific evidence is one of those.

The best scientific evidence that can be made available. When you look

at the government's moratorium on the growing of GM crops, is that a

political decision? Not really based on a scientific decision? There were

decisions made before I took up the role and it is difficult to know the

background of how existing things were formulated. The government did

have scientific advisers in place at that point. There is an advisory

structure. I am looking forward to going forward from here, at the

breadth of policies, looking to see how scientific evidence creeps in.

But when you look at the evidence, there has been no substantiated

evidence that food from GM crops have been less safe than foods from

Norman GM crops so it looks like the scientific evidence does not back up

the government's position. -- non-GM crops. Looking at the evidence that

exists is something we have not had a chance to do yet. Again, across

the breadth of policy going forward, in all areas, that is something I

look forward to doing. The other hot potato for the government is

fracking. If the decision, whether or not to Frank, was based purely on

science, what would you advise? That is an area where I look forward to

reviewing the state of the evidence. -- whether or not to frack. I will

look at whether the best evidence is available. But there must be

evidence out there already and you must already have a view. I don't

think my opinion, as the adviser it is important for me not to put

forward personal views, but to look at the evidence it is out there and

use that to feed into policy decisions. The SNP's manifesto

commitment was to no fracking in Scotland unless it could be proved

beyond doubt that there was no risk. Can science do that? It is a good

question. An interesting question. What science can do is provide

evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It is an interesting one. In different

situations, scientific facts can point in different directions and it

is important to do the best to gather those. I think it is an

important question to ask. But science cannot prove beyond doubt

that there is not a risk. Again, proving negatives is an interesting

thing. Risk, of course, is a whole area in itself. Risk in any area,

not just in this area, but risking health, risk in broad environmental

issues, it is one that I think other people do not have a good grasp of

in terms of risk. In any evidence he goes forward, understanding risk and

balance of probabilities, that is important. Does it frustrate you

when the public tends to make a decision based on gut instinct

rather than maybe a level-headed evaluation of risk, and the fact?

What is important is both not just to gather evidence, because I think

that is an important thing about this role, to help to translate what

can be quite complicated background, quite contacted facts, and try to

condense those down and make them understandable. I think

communication is an important part of the role, both inside and outside

government. The post has been vacant for quite a while before you took it

up. Do you think there is a concern among your peers that science and

politics just do not mix? I think the post has been vacant for a while

but my understanding is that the government sought to fill the

position. It was not that there was any inactivity. We should be clear

that there are are other Chief scientific advisers, for health and

for rural affairs and the environment. There is the Scottish

scientific advisory Council, and again there has been a scientific

advisory structure in place throughout that time. I think there

is happiness within the community that the post has been filled and I

look forward to the outward facing part of this role, to increasing

those links with the scientific community, back into the system,

across the advisory structure going forward. But if you look across

these big issues, GM crops and fracking over the past year or so,

do you think there is a frustration within the scientific community that

perhaps politicians are looking beyond the facts and just thinking

about winning votes? Again, I can speak for the external community on

that point. But you don't have to get elected every five years and

they do. My job will be very specifically to make sure that the

best scientific evidence is available. Thank you for your time.

And good luck in your role. Still with me here in the studio

are Iain Macwhirter, The Professor there are refusing to

be drawn on fracking or GM crops. I wonder how important her input will

be on these issues in the coming months? The SNP government seems to

have made up its mind. Well, it has taken them 18 months to select her,

and she seems to be the ideal candidate. She does not seem to have

any views at all and she does not seem very interested in getting any

scientific advice to the government, which has, let's admit, not been

very responsive to nominally independent advice, even from Select

Committees or from advisers. The decision will be made politically.

Nicola Sturgeon is in the driving seat. The government has always said

that they like to make their decisions based on the science but

they really do. On the issue of GM crops and fracking, the government

have said that they refuse to make a decision on the grounds of

scientific evidence. With fracking, it is not going to take the absence

of any obvious risk from this kind of unconventional gas extraction, it

is not going to take that as a reason for holding up if it feels

that politically it cannot get it through Parliament. As things stand,

I don't think that it is a starter. Do you think the politics and

science will inevitably be an unhappy mix? I think the important

thing with this post holder is that she is allowed to do her job

unfettered by politics. We've seen examples in Westminster where a

government advisers, particularly legal advisers have been pressured

into giving certain responses. I think she has to just issue reports,

and then to the ministers and in the ministers make the decision, based

on politics as well, obviously. The big one coming up is fracking and we

have this moratorium and the research report is being

commissioned. Clearly this new scientific adviser will have a role

in that but once she has her say, it is a matter for the government. And

as Ian says, I don't think they have got the numbers there, even if there

was a government will for fracking. I guess at the end, a responsible

government has to take public opinion into account. Even if the

science does not support what they think. Well, they do, absolutely,

and they said that is what they did on the decisions they made an GM is

crops. -- GM crops. We saw the Professor grappling with the

definition of beyond reasonable doubt there and as Paul said, she

presents a report full of scientific facts, and surely it is then for the

government to decide whether or not that has been proved beyond

reasonable doubt in their eyes. And then put forward a policy to ban or

allowed fracking. Professor Rowan is the third chief scientific adviser

to be a woman. Do you think it is important for girls to see a woman

in a role like that, to help boost the number of girls taking up

science? Yes. I think it is good. I hope that she has not been selected

purely on the grounds of gender but I think it is very good for women.

It sounds very patronising to put it this way and I hesitate to speak

about it, really, because it seems self-evidently the case that

obviously people should, there should be equal numbers of people

with the will to go into these kind of sciences. Do you think it is

significant? When so few women take up science as a career? I think it

is good to see another woman in a leadership role in such a prominent

position. I think that it is great. Thanks all of you for coming in this

evening. We will see what happens after tomorrow's vote. And that is

it for tonight. We're off the air tomorrow night

for the Referendum coverage We'll be back on Monday, usual time,

with all the reaction After months of campaigning

and debating, every vote in the EU referendum

will soon have been cast. As the counts

come in from across the UK, we'll be here to discuss

the outcome, keeping you updated throughout the night until the very

last set of votes is declared. And we finally discover the result

of this historic referendum.