Salmond versus Darling Scotland Decides

It's the vote that will decide Scotland's future.

With the eyes of the world watching, as the independence referendum

edges ever closer, welcome to Glasgow for Scotland Decides:

Hello and welcome to the magnificent Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum

in Glasgow, home to one of Europe's finest collections. As the

As the independence referendum campaign enters its final stages,

we've brought together two of the biggest names in Scottish politics

Making the case for a Yes vote - the First Minister of Scotland,

Alex Salmond which leads the SNP, which has been

campaigning for independence for 80 years.

Making the case for a No vote - the former Labour Chancellor, Alistair

Darling, who leads the Better Together campaign to keep Scotland

in the United Kingdom. It's only the second time these two men have gone

head to head in what has been a long campaign. They do so, on the day the

first postal ballots were sent out. For almost one in five Scottish

voters, this is the eve of poll. In the next 90 minutes, our guests will

face questions from members of our audience, from me and from each

other. I'll explain more about that in a moment. But first, there's an

opportunity for both men to make short opening statements. Alex

Salmond won a coin toss and has chosen to go first. Mr Salmond, you

Ladies and gentleman, this is an extraordinary time for us all. The

eyes of the world are focussed on Scotland. Twice before in Scotland

in recent history, we've stood at the cross-roads. In 1979, we didn't

get the Parliament we voted for and instead got 18 years offer to

Government, Margaret Thatcher, the deintuft reelisation of Scotland and

the poll tax to boot. In 1997, we took our opportunity and since the

Parliament came to Scotland, life has got better. We introduced free

personal care for the elderly, we removed tuition fees from the next

generation of students. We helped the old by providing security and we

gave opportunity to the young. When we have problems like the current

threat to the Ferguson shipyard, we can act deicively to save jobs.

There is much, far too much, that is still controlled at Westminster. We

couldn't stop the bedroom tax. We can't stop illegal wars. We can't

stop the poor and disabled bearing the brunt of welfare cuts. We can't

stop the spread of food banks in this prosperous country. We can't

stop countless billions being wasted on a new generation of weapons of

mass destruction. Now we have the opportunity to change all of that.

Three weeks on Thursday we can take matters into Scottish hands. Next to

no-one wants to go backwards. More and more Scots want to complete the

home-rule journey. The case for independence depends on a simple

proposition: No-one, absolutely no-one will want the be better than

the people who live and work in Scotland. No-one cares more about

Scotland. Just like in 1979, the voices of doom tell us we can't do

it. We can't do what every other country takes for granted. Just like

then, they are wrong. We are a rich nation, a resourceful people. We can

create a prosperous nation and a fairer society, a real vision for

the people of Scotland. This is our time. It's our moment. Let us do it

now. APPLAUSE

This is This is it, he's asking us to take his word for it on

everything, no Plan B for anything. Trust what he says, sorry I can't.

The basic difference between Alex Salmond and me is this: My first

priority is to build a fairer and better society. His first priority

is to create a separate state no matter what the risks and what the

costs. While he's been spending the last two years talking, I've been

listening. I know that people want change. But they also want security

on jobs, on pensions, on their children's future. That's why my

message is that No, Thanks will not mean no changes. That's why there

will be more powers for the Scottish Parliament on tax, welfare, on

everything that makes sense to decide here. We've delivered before.

We will deliver again. Now, tomorrow, we Scots will start voting

by post, so we need answers tonight, right here and right now. The

currency, no answers. Let me tell you why currency matters. Currency

is about jobs in huge numbers. Currency is about what we pay for

the weekly shop, interest rates, mortgage rates and rents and the

value of our pensions. Critically currency, the money we use, is about

being able to pay for public services upon which we all depend.

That's the real threat to our national Health Service, not the

ones he's trying to scare us with. The questions have grown, what about

oil? Last week, Sir Ian Wood, the North Sea oil expert issued a stark

warning, simply, he says that they're hugely exaggerating oil

revenues to make sure the sums add up. Again, are we going to place all

our bets on Alex Salmond alone being right? We don't need to take that

risk. The United Kingdom is about sharing risks and rewards with our

neighbours. Being part of something bigger gives us opportunity and

security as well as our Scottish identity and decision making. This

is a decision for which there is no turning back, but our children and

the generation that's follow will have to live with that decision. Now

you might hear some good lines from him tonight, but remember, a good

line is not always a good answer. It's answers now we need, otherwise

for ourselves and our children, other generations to come, we have

to say No, Thanks. APPLAUSE

Thank you for your opening remarks. Tonight 's debate is a game of four

halves or at least four sections. There will be questions on the

economy, on Scotland at home, on Scotland's place in the world and

what happens after the referendum. The lead questions will come from

members of our audience, here in Kelvingrove, 200 people have been

independently selected by the polling and research consultancy

ComRes to include a balance of yes and no supporters as well as some

undecided voters, a further 20 members of the public, simply

balanced, have been invited to take part, by the BBC, having sent in

questions via the BBC website. The first section is on the economy and

the first question comes from Jean Smith. Would we be financially safe

in an independent Scotland? Well, a lot of that depends on the currency

we use. At the moment, the bedrock of our economy is the pound

sterling. That doesn't belong to any one of the individual countries in

the United Kingdom, it belongs to the United Kingdom as a whole, the

Bank of England stands behind it and behind that the UK Government. I

know from my experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer, when I

had to deal with the collapse of the banking system in 2008, the security

that comes from having a country that was large enough to deal with

the collapsing bank, you remember the royal bank was almost the same

size as the whole of the UK at that time, meant I could do something

about it. My Irish counterpart, my Icelandic counterpart, remember, the

ark of prosperity, they weren't so lucky because they weren't big

enough. That's one of the reasons why I believe that Scotland is

better and stronger together by being part of the United Kingdom we

have that greater security. Of course, if you look at the wider

economy, Scotland has a lot going for us. Our businesses, our firms do

well but I would argue that is because of the United Kingdom not

despite the United Kingdom. When I look at jobs for our children and

grandchildren, in a pretty uncertain world, I'm very convinced it's in

our best interests to be proud of what we do here in Scotland, proud

of our identity, but equally proud to share in the wider United Kingdom

because we get something bigger, something greater, greater security

out of that as well. Well, the question was will we be safe and

security as an independent Scotland economically, the answer is yes, we

will. Scotland compared to other wealthy countries, we're 14th in the

organisation of economic and cooperation and development, the

rich man's club, it's sometimes called per head of population.

Alastair raised the currency. Let me say what we want to do. I'm looking

for a mandate so we can share sterling, the pound, in a sensible

currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom. That's best because

England and Wales and Northern Ireland are our biggest export

market. We're their second biggest export market. It makes sense. I'm

looking - I know there's other options for Scotland, we could have

a Scottish currency, like Sweden or Norway does. We could have a

Scottish pound attached to the pound sterling. That's what Denmark does

with the euro or Hong Kong with the dollar. No-one can stop us using the

pound sterling. It's an internationally tradeable currency.

We believe the best option for Scotland, what I'm seeking a mandate

for, so to have the pound scerling, so -- sterling, we pay our mortgage,

get our wages in the pound. I'm seeking the best option for Scotland

so a prosperous economy keeps the pound sterling.

APPLAUSE I can tell you both that we will be

coming to the currency. In the next part of the discussion, I'd like to

focus on an issue that has become topical over the last few days and

that is oil. I think you mentioned Sir Ian Wood, a leading figure in

the North Sea questioning how much black gold there is to be extracted.

Since then other prominent figures in the industry have said there

might be more than he anticipates. Alistair Darling, isn't it the case

that the figures from the UK Government's independent Office for

Budget Responsibility are too low? They say there are only ten billion

barrels left, the industry says 24. If you look at the last 20 years

successive Governments have been too optimistic about production and the

amount of revenue we get from the North Sea. As you say, the office of

budget responsibility, which is independent of Government, its given

estimates and proved to be too optimistic. I just give an example

of what the problem is: In the last couple of years, the amount of

revenue we've got from the North Sea has been ?5 billion less than was

expected. That ?5 billion, to give you an example of what that does, it

is equivalent to more than we spend on schools in Scotland and half what

we spend on the Health Service. If you lost that sum in any one year,

as happened last year, it means for Scotland it would have to make good

that, either by raising taxes elsewhere or cutting back on public

exebd expenditure. Do you think the estimates, which are lower than the

industry, far lower than Sir Ian Wood suggests, they are too low? Are

they too pessimistic? If you look back, they have been too optimistic.

Looking ahead, we've never extracted as much as people expect. Sir Ian

Wood was commissioned by the Government to see how we could get

more oil extracted, but he, last week, and he is probably one of the

leading experts in the North Sea, he has said that the Scottish

Government is something, is being wildly on the mistic. I hope --

optimistic I hope we get more oil revenue from the North Sea. But if

you don't, remember an independent Scotland would get about 15% of its

revenues from the North Sea - You will have plenty of time. It's a

small pror portion of revenue for the UK. We are taking on a huge

amount of risk because North Sea oil revenues are volatile, uncertain and

we will make huge cuts to public expend chair if it went wrong as it

has in the last year. Alastair twice said that the OBR was independent

and to be trusted. Yet in 2010, he said it wasn't so much a part of

Government but had become a part of the Conservative Party. That's what

he said. You are misleading. As far as Ian Wood... Not for the first

time, you're being totally misleading about that. You asked me

not to interrupt you, so do me the same service. Ian Wood is a

respected figure in the industry, let's take his estimate of the

future reserves of North Sea oil. He says between 17 to 18. 5 billion

barrels, that's a thousand million barrels over the next 35 years. 15

to 16-and-a-half. In financial terms, that is worth ?1 trillion. It

has a lot of billions, a lot of money. The No campaign, the Tory

party, the Labour Party, the only people in the world who argue that

the possession of substantial amounts of oil and gas is somehow

cursed as opposed to an asset for a country. Every other country in the

world thinks it's an asset. APPLAUSE

You are quoting a wholesale value of oil.

What the Government actually gets is the tax from that. The profits go to

America and places like that. What I would say to you, the North Sea has

been in a colossal boon to this country for 40 years, but what you

can't get away from is that once it is gone, it has gone. Slowly but

surely, every barrel we take away, there is one barrel less. I don't

want to see my country so dependent on something that is so volatile

that in one year last year, you lost more revenues than be spent on the

whole of the schools in Scotland. Let me ask a question. It is the

case your own Government's forecast, downgraded by ?1 billion for the

first year of independence, that's an acceptance that this is a

volatile resource which will be much more important to the economy than

it is to the UK than an independent Scotland. Don't you feel it's a

risk? It's about 15% of Scotland's overall economy. It is 20% of

Norway's overall economy and I haven't seen do Norway much harm

over the last 40 years. Now, Alistair says the last 40 years been

great but 40 years ago, his colleagues were telling us that

North Sea oil and gas would run out by the year 2000. The reality is,

North Sea oil and gas will be with is way behind 2050. Alistair says I

was quoting a wholesale value but let's say that 20% of it is the

revenue that goes to the Government. That is ?200 billion, 200,000

billion pounds, ?6 billion a year. The reality is, every other country

in Europe would give their eye teeth to have North Sea oil and gas for

the bid cannot be regarded as anything other than a substantial

asset for the people of Scotland. But it's notoriously volatile.

APPLAUSE .

You're promising things on the basis of the source of revenue which is

very volatile, which would make up a substantial part of Scotland's

income and boiler is a great thing to have but to rely so much on

something, that oil. Your White Paper, there was just one page of

members for one year and the estimates you made the oil have

proved to be wrong, much lower than you thought. To tell people they can

rely on it is gambling our children's future.

APPLAUSE I want to move to our second

question on the economy from Cathy Devlin.

I would like to know in an independent Scotland, I would like a

definitive answer exactly what currency we will use if we don't use

sterling. Alex Salmond you have set up the options but what is the

definitive answer? Can I say to Cathy, since I had opportunity to

lead a number of opportunities at options for Scotland, I am seeking a

mandate for the people of Scotland in this referendum. I want people to

back the proposition that we should share sterling in a currency union,

a common sense common currency is best for Scotland and the rest of

the UK. Now, that mandate is crucial for the battle they want people in

Scotland to support because I believe if we supported and send me

into negotiations as First Minister, that will be the outcome. I have

said at the options to point out that other things Scotland could

do. I laid out in some detail earlier on, but I would go as First

Minister to argue what's best for Scotland seeking a mandate from the

people of Scotland so we can have that as a settlement in negotiations

if I was to argue for second best, then second best is what we would

get. You go into negotiations with that mandate arguing for what's best

for Scotland and that is keeping the ?.

APPLAUSE -- ? the point about a currency

union is both parties have to agree to it and yes there is the sovereign

will of the Scottish people but also we have to accept there is a

sovereign will have the rest of the UK for a currency union to work.

Both sides have to agree. You can see that in the Eurozone. When you

look at the views throughout the whole country, just why would expect

people to say we don't want to join the euro but will join a currency

union with a foreign country, you are taking a huge risk if you just

assume it's going to fall into place. I think the currency union

would be bad for Scotland because our budget would have to be decided

and approved, not by us, but by what would then be a foreign country

because that's what happened in the Eurozone. Every country has to stand

in its budget for approval and it would not be good for the rest of

the UK either but the question which was asked was, if we don't have a

currency union, what is plan B? I had no luck three weeks ago I asked

him what that was. He could not say, didn't want to say because we

wouldn't like the answer. It's not a matter for Alex Salmond what the

alternative is. Hold on. I would like to know what the answer is

because I don't want to use somebody else's currency with no central

bank, rotten public services. It is the euro, I don't not bad either and

as for a separate Scottish currency, we saw what happened with a new

currency, the new kid on the block, the first thing, they default on

debt. I want to know what plan B is. APPLAUSE

. I set out the options very clearly.

Three plan Bs for the price of one. They are just like buses. You expect

one and then up in a row. Three plan B Pol. I would like to follow up

here. It people back that plan, to keep sterling in a sensible currency

union, would you, as a Democrat, accept that as the will of the

Scottish people? If you win this referendum, I will accept a No vote,

but do you accept the solid goodwill of Scottish people and back the

currency union? I have always said, in a referendum, you accept the

outcome, but I happen to think and so do a lot of people in this

country that a currency union that you are proposing is a second best

option for Scotland. The ? only works if you have an economic and

political union. I want to hear from members of our audience if you would

like to contribute some points. It's not the case of not giving us your

plan B because we can work it out. You have said no to the euro, you

don't support that, the White Paper says if somebody wants to argue the

case for a separate Scottish currency they need to win an

election, so that leaves us with at the point of Independence, if we

can't have a currency union, using the pound anyway. You are absolutely

right we don't need permission to use our own currency for that nobody

can tell us to do or not to use the pound. The argument actually denies

us the assets of the Bank of England, the financial assets of the

country. The reason that won't happen incidentally is if you do

that, the UK, the rest of the UK, the people watching at home in

England and Wales tonight and Northern Ireland, will get stuck

with liabilities and there's absolutely no way, the enormous

debts so Alistair Darling and George Osborne built up that any UK

Chancellor is going to let Scotland off ?5 billion a year of the debt

payments we have offered to make as part of a sensible currency union.

That's why it's good for Scotland and good for the rest of the UK.

APPLAUSE You said a few moments ago you had a

row of buses, plan Bs. This is not a collection of buses

but the many we use. The value of our savings. The interest rates we

pay, the amount of money for public services. Stop playing games with

us. You must have a plan B for the Scottish people. If we win the

referendum, will you... Nobody can hear. Can we use the pound anyway?

Of course, we could use a pound, the ruble. We can use anything we want.

The problem is, if you're using somebody else's currency, you don't

have a central bank, so the financial services can't exist in

Scotland. Just hold on a bet, will you? The second problem is,

countries which use other people 's currencies like Panama, Ecuador,

Hong Kong, they have to run a surplus, they can't borrow. You

would have a huge deficit. That comes out of public services like

schools and hospitals. That's why it is a nonsense option. If the rest of

the UK refuses a currency union, doesn't it leave itself liable for

all the accumulated UK debt? No, it doesn't. Glenn asked me a question.

Then he will come onto you, no doubt. If your first message in the

World is here is Scotland, new currency, and by the way, we have

just defaulted on our debt, what you think that will do to people who

lend us money in the future? Nobody would lend any money in the future.

The accepted liability for UK debt and all surpluses on January 13 this

commie can't default on a debt which is not yours in the first place.

Alistair few seconds ago, admitted he could use the anyway. We didn't

need permission. Totally different from the Chancellor of the exchequer

said only a few months ago when he said if you walk out of the UK, you

walk out of the pound. We have heard it tonight. They cannot stop us

using the pound, the most important revelation of this debate. Are you

saying... Are you saying, Alex Salmond, if the UK refused a

currency union, you would refuse to take a share of debt? We cannot be

stopped from using the pound but what it can do is deny us the access

to the financial assets held by the Bank of England. The Bank of England

for example owns 27% of UK debt. You would not take the debt? We are

offering to pay a fair share as part of the agreement. If the UK parties

take all of financial assets of the UK, then they are stuck with all the

financial liabilities of the United Kingdom. It's obvious. I want to

bring in some members of the audience who have not had a say so

far in the programme. The gentleman in a middle in a checked shirt. A

question for Alistair. The point is come if you think the currency union

is the second option, second best for Scotland, what would be the best

for an independent Scotland? We will pick up on that. The gentleman in

the front row in the middle with a black jacket and blue shirt. The Yes

side Saint Nicholas promises that speaking to the other parties. If we

come out of the UK, we will also come out of the offside for the euro

and other member of the EU will be required to take on the euro with in

a matter of years. OK, the lady in the back row. I think whether we use

the pound or not is regardless at this point, and it sounds like we'll

have some kind of currency union. The problem is, and what situation

would we have it? It seems like Alex Salmond is suggesting we held a

central bank to ransom and I wonder how the English Government will

respond to that given it will be a foreign country at that point?

Perhaps you might want to pick up on the Euro question. Can I do say to

the lady was just spoken, our proposition is we should have a fair

share of financing the debts accumulated by the UK as part of a

sensible currency arrangement. As far as the gentleman's point on the

row is concerned, you can't be forced into it. Sweden, for

example, is part of the EU on exactly the same basis legally that

Scotland would be. Sweden is not in the road because joining it is

voluntary. -- in the Euro. The gentleman spoke first asked the most

important question. Alistair seems to rule out everything. 190

countries have a currency arrangement and why would Scotland

be the only independent country in history which can't have a

satisfactory currency to run its own affairs? We would not have to have a

currency in a Yes Vote... As the former Chancellor, what would your

advice be if we could not have a currency? I think the fallback

positions are second and bad for Scotland. It is possible in a few

weeks time, Scotland could choose to be independent, and you have been in

the Treasury. You know what is not good for this country but what would

be the best plan B option? Honestly, they are all second-best and I'm not

going to argue for a second-best option. I'm sorry. You're not doing

as a plan B either after saying Alex Salmond wouldn't give us a plan B.

The pound sterling is the best for Scotland. It's not like a CD

collection you split up in a divorce for the value of the ? if the Bank

of England stands behind it and UK Government stands behind that and

that's why the ? acceptable. The lady was asking about the euro. It

is the case that every country which adorn the European Union after 1996

has been obliged to join the euro. We'll have to see in discussions

what happened then but in relation to the currency union, I will be

brief, even if you have got one, I can't understand why, as a

nationalist, you would want one because our borrowing, tax and

spending would be decided, not in Edinburgh, but by a foreign

Government in London. APPLAUSE

The next section of our debate which is on Scotland at home. The next

question now. I just want to know how independence would improve or

change the NHS for everyone, but in particular, for people living with

life-long conditions, chronic illnesses? I will put that first to

Alex Salmond. Can I say to Linda that the most important thing about

the National Health Service for people with chronic conditions and

all of us as we keep it safe in public hands and keep it properly

financed. The position just now under devolution is we can't be

forced to privatise the National Health Service because we have

operational control of it, but we don't have financial control of it.

That is a serious problem. There are people watching in Wales tonight

where the National Health Service spending has been reduced in real

terms because of the financial pressure the budgets London. There

people in England watching where they have a Jarrow march taking

place, through Yorkshire tonight, campaigning against the

privatisation of the National Health Service. Now the danger for Scotland

is this: If England goes down the road of privatisation and charging

and cuts to public spending, it's not because they can force us to

privatise the Health Service in Scotland because they can't. It's

the financial pressure makes things extremely difficult for the Health

Service in Scotland. That's why to have a Health Service we can trust

and rely on, we've got to have a Health Service where we have

financial control as well as policy control, so we can keep the National

Health Service as the greatest public institution of Scotland.

APPLAUSE The Health Service is critically

important to all of us in Scotland. It's one of the most Cherished

institution there's is in the country. That is one of the reasons

that I believe being part of the United Kingdom means that we have

that strength and security that means that we can fund it,

especially with the pressures of an ageing population here in Scotland.

At the moment, quite rightly, the total control over the NHS lies with

the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. Not only in

terms of policy, but actually, in terms of financing. The Scottish

Parliament can decide how much or how little it spends, how much it

spends in the public sector, how much it spends in the private sector

and the Scottish Government has spent in the last couple of years

nearly ?100 million of NHS money through the private sector in order

to meet its targets. So both Governments are doing that. The

point is because of the strength and security of the United Kingdom,

public spending here is ?1200 a head more than in the rest of the United

Kingdom and that is the way to guarantee spending on the National

Health Service. Now I'm glad we're discussing it. At the last debate,

Alex Salmond mentioned the NHS once. Since that debate, and all the

business over the currency, we've been subjected to a scare campaign

principally aimed at what's going on in England...

LAUGHTER Alex Salmond was endorsing the claim

that operations were being stopped at a hospital in Gateshead in the

north-east of England because of privatisation. It turns out the

allegation was simply untrue. It was a complete fabrication. What we need

is less of that scaremongering and more of a realisation that we all

want the NHS to do well. We all want it to be there when we need it and

to do that you need funding. Frankly, taking on risks not even

knowing what currency you've got is a real threat to the National Health

Let's pursue Service. This then. APPLAUSE

I will be seeking further audience contributions in just a moment. But

Alex Salmond, if a Yes vote is the only way to protect the NHS, why

doesn't it say that in your white paper on independence, your prospeck

Tuesday? -- prospectus? That's been a long-term argument for the case

for independence. Why isn't it in the white paper? I tried to weigh it

out carefully. I'm not saying we can be forced to privatise the Health

Service in Scotland because we have operational control of the National

Health Service. But I am saying that general cutbacks in England, a move

towards privatisation and charging will impose financial pressure on

the National Health Service. If we want to see what could happen in

Scotland tomorrow, we only need to look at what's happening in Wales

today, where a Labour administration has been forced to cut back National

Health Service in real terms because this afternoon budgetary pressure.

We've protected it in Scotland to date. It is extraordinarily

difficult. Alastair says we can choose. The overall Scottish budget

has been cut by 8%. Isn't the point that the budget for the NHS in

England is rising and continues to rise, so at what point, in what year

do you think it will fall with a knock-on cut to the Scottish budget?

Exactly, which is why I've said the overall budget to Scotland has been

cut by 8%. If we, as we have, decide to protect the National Health

Service, which we've done, that's a third of our spending, that means

the rest of the budget takes a 12% cut. If, as we believe, and Labour

believe in England, there's a privatisation agenda and a charging

agenda in the National Health Service, it means less public money

spent in England and under devolution that knocks on to

Scotland. Nobody believes that privatising the Health Service to

increase public spending, nobody believes that. Therefore, to protect

and the National Health Service we have to control it financially as

well as in policy terms to keep it safe in public hands. Let's bring in

Alistair Darling. Let me ask the question...

APPLAUSE If the Scottish National Party is

wrong about this, why has the Shadow Health Secretary, Labour's Andy

Burnham, been warning about the demise of the NHS in England?

Because there's a big argument going on as to exactly how much private

sector provision do you use as part of the overall treatment. Actually,

in public spending terms, whether the NHS spends its money directly or

through a private contractor, it doesn't make any difference in terms

of the amount of money that we get. But there's an important point here,

throughout all the time of the Labour Government, of which I was a

member, we increased spending on health. It actually has carried on

increasing under the present Government and it's due to carry on

increasing in the next few years. Don't just believe me. There's an

article in the Financial Times today that made that point. Which leads me

to wonder why, firstly, in the last debate, Alex Salmond mentioned the

NHS once. In the constitution he published the draft constitution for

Scotland published published the draft constitution for

wasn't mentioned at all. This has all come along as part of the

referendum campaign. It may be an issue in the general election, but

what I really resent is using scare stories like the one in the hospital

in the north-east in order to make a point, which has got nothing to do

with this referendum. Let's hear from the audience first. Then you

can both come back in. The lady towards the front here. I would like

to encourage everybody, whether you're voting yes or no or you're

undecided - don't believe a word that comes out of Alistair Darling's

mouth. You are a hypocrite Mr Darling. You and your Labour

Government started the privatisation of the Health Service. Yes you did.

No, we didn't. Half of your boys' club in Westminster have lovely

investments in private health companies. One last thing, if you

get any more invites to speak at fancy dinners for private health

companies, I hope you can feel Mr Bevan sitting on your shoulder. All

right, thank you. Gentleman at the back.

Yes you with the glasses. Is the real threat to Scotland's budget not

the scrapping of the Barnett formula, advocated by several

ministers in the current Cabinet. That's the way in which money is

shared out across the UK, all the nations of the UK. I'll take another

gentleman in the middle here in the blue shirt. You're talking about

saving the NHS and how important it is, why then are you allowing trials

down in England where you can get private health care? That's going to

erode wages, erode the service and allow people to farm out, like the

lady said, private companies to come and lift the money right out of the

NHS. That's not going to help us in any shape or form. One more. Right

up the back. Gentleman in the blue T-shirt. What about the Post Office?

You privatised that, Mr Darling? Let's stick with the National Health

Service. That's enough for us to cope with at the moment. Do you want

to pick up on those points? I didn't privatise the Post Office. In

relation to the Health Service, I think every one of us here and most

people in this country want to see a strong and thriving Health Service.

That's my concern. I think we can best do that by being part of the UK

where you have higher public expenditure, which goes to the

Health Service in Scotland. We do in the rest of the United Kingdom. We

have an ageing population in Scotland. We have a rising health

need. I don't want to put that at risk. When I look at independent

experts, not anything I'm saying, who look at Scotland's budgetary

position in the years after independence, and they've identified

a ?6 billion black hole over and above anything that might bring I

don't want to put the Health Service at risk. I'm against going down a

route that ends up us finding that public services are more squeezed,

more pressure and cut in a way that I don't think any of us want to see.

I'm not prepared to take that risk. APPLAUSE

The risk to the National Health Service comes from the cutbacks

we've already had from Westminster, already pertaining in Wales, the

threat of ?25 billion more. Now the Labour Party in England are warning

loud and clear of the risk of privatisation throughout the

National Health Service, the risk of charging. The Labour Party in Wales

say that they've been forced to cut health expenditure because of the

budgetary pressure from Westminster. Are you the only person who doesn't

realise what's going on in England and Wales and the threat to Scotland

unless we establish financial control to protect our own Health

Service? APPLAUSE

In a sentence. I recognise budgetary constraints everywhere. What I'm

saying is that - You accuse me of scaremongering.

CHEERING Because I believe that we can do

better, we can be more prosperous, more options open to us by being

proud what have we do in Scotland, but also having the advantage of

being part of the United Kingdom. Let me give an example. A few weeks

ago, I visited one of the most developed and advanced research,

medical research centres in Dundee. There are people working there on

possible cures and treatments for cancer, not just from Scotland, but

from all over the country. Why are they there? Because Dundee attracts

a very large share of UK research money. The experts were saying to

me, if they lose that UK research money, by losing the UK, that will

mean we lose that centre of expert ease. That's not -- expertise.

That's important in terms of job that's will come in being able to

develop treatments. That's one example. Near Glasgow, on the Clyde,

we know there have been huge problems with the threatened closure

of Fergusons. There are a lot of Royal Navy work here that depends on

the Royal Navy. There's a submarine work further down the Clyde. Defence

jobs are throughout Scotland. They're all examples of where jobs

will come from in the future and if we lose those jobs, if we put a

barrier between those firms and businesses and the markets south of

the border that will have a bad effect on employment prospects. Yes,

things are difficult just now for very obvious reasons, but I believe

that we will be making a huge mistake to take on risks that we

don't need and giving up on opportunities that we need for our

children and generations to come. APPLAUSE

Can I say, as First Minister, I've been working all week with the shop

stewards at Fergusons to try and secure the employment there. I am

absolutely delighted that we have moved into a position tonight with a

prepared bidder and every opportunity and every belief that

we're going to be able to sustain that yard and sustain the employment

in the lower Clyde. That's the sort of action we've been able to take

now because we have a Scottish Parliament that we couldn't take

before. As far as other job threats in the Clyde are concerned,

Alastair, the gentleman's question hit the nail on the head. You say

there's threats to ship building jobs. I don't accept that. I think

the future for ship building George Osborne is as the UCS workers, the

shop stewards said last week, by diversifying our skills into the

range of merchant vessels, like Norway, who produced 100 vessels in

the last year. The ship building employment in Scotland has gone from

tens of thousands to 3,000s under the United Kingdom. When gentleman

said, not just talking about ship building, if we're better together,

why don't we see it now, face the reality. In so many airsa -- areas

of life, of child poverty, food banks, the loss of industrial jobs,

Westminster stands dieted because of their running of the economy --

indicted because of the running of the economy in Scotland.

There are many issues we could discuss and we are quite pressed for

time in this section will any pick on one, the welfare issue you

mentioned. Alistair Darling, the Scottish

Government estimates, as a result of disability living allowance being

replaced with a personal independence payment, in the coming

years, more than 100,000 disabled Scottish people will lose money for

them to you support that reform? No one can support people who need

support being denied help. We have come as a country, our

responsibility to help people who need support, but to do that, you

need the means to do it. What concerns me is that, if you end up

in a situation where you are cutting off opportunities for phones that

generate wealth and therefore generate taxation, to pay for these

things, -- firms then you are less likely to provide support in the

future. That's why I think this approach is absolutely wrong. We

know that people with disabilities, we know we've got an ageing

population who require more medical care, we know we have are falling

working age population. Why take that burden on 5 million people when

it could be shared across 63 million? It

it could be shared across 63 whatsoever. Isn't it more

sustainable dramatist and draws on taxes from the whole of the UK

rather than just those who pay in Scotland? Clearly not, because in

your question, you gave the answer. There are 100,000 Scots with

disabilities falling victim to the welfare reforms. Alistair Darling

didn't bother to condemn, as he went on in his answer but I condemn the

way people with disabilities are being treated and I think it's an

indictment of the way that Westminster has handled Social

Security. Yes, we have troubled economic times, but the mark of a

Government of concern is when you are in difficult times, you don't

take it out on the disabled and on families with children and impose a

bedroom tax which must be the most ludicrous tax of all time.

APPLAUSE When times are tough and cash is

short, an independent Scotland may have to make some of the very

difficult choices the UK Government is making at the moment.

We made a choice in the Scottish Parliament for the Westminster

introduced the bedroom tax and we had taking money out of other

resources in parliament despite the fact we don't control Social

Security, to compensate people for the ridiculous argument that if you

have a disability and you need a spare room, a box room for your

equipment, all of a sudden you're going to lose housing benefit, we

had to take ?50 million to compensate in order to make sure

that ordinary Scots didn't suffer all were penalised. If we controlled

welfare, and introduced bedroom tax on the first place, wouldn't it be

better? APPLAUSE

The bedroom tax is thoroughly bad in every respect for the bid needs to

be repealed. And what's more, we have said if we

are elected next year, not only will we repeal it,

I want to go back to currency because on Sunday I read in the

newspapers that... CROWD BOOS

other options for Scotland, three Bs which I described. But which one?

The flexible currency union Sweden and Norway have, the fixed exchange

rate like Denmark, and Hong Kong has with the dollar and I pointed out,

and thankfully you admitted in early on in this debate, we cannot be

stopped from using the pound anyway. So, you see, three plan Bs,

Alistair. The reason I'm raising it again is because the currency is the

foundation of our economy, of what we have to do is save, the value of

money, the interest rates, how much we can spend on things. I want you

to contemplate the impossible. Ask yourself, you're wrong, you don't

get the currency union, what is plan B? Even your insults have been

retreaded from the last debate, Alistair, it's incredible. I set out

what the options and explain him in great detail and I've asked the very

obvious question to say why user adamant putting forward what's best

for Scotland, I'm seeking a mandate from the people here, at home, I

want a mandate so we can go in with the will of the Scottish people to

have a common sense, common currency. If we get that mandolin,

and we win, will you support that option? -- mandate. And it's bad for

Scotland, for the UK. All I'm asking you, just oppose the one moment you

didn't die currency union, it's not your money, it's everybody else's

money, what is it? Our own currency? " and Mark? Your top adviser said we

might have a Panamanian solution using the currency for a

transitional period of six months. I don't want to be in Panama for six

minutes. There's 190 countries in the world, range of currency

options. An independent Scotland will be the first country in history

way you describe all of the currency options as long. I am First Minister

and I want to go into this referendum seeking a clear mandate

from the Scottish people for the viewer been asked a number of times,

if you win the referendum, I will accept the result. If the Yes side

win, will you campaign against... This is... I will accept the result.

With ballot papers going at the Day after tomorrow, people want to know

what is going to happen to the money they have got, what currency will

they have if they don't have a currency union? Jones answer the

question. You admitted in the programme, you cannot stop us from

using the pound. That is plan B, is it? I think there will be a currency

union because if you go down the road of you denying as assets and

the Bank of England, you end up being stuck with a debt, which you

and the current Chancellor managed to accumulate 60% off. Will you be

prepared to support this southern -- sovereign will of the Scottish

people? Can we stop there for a second? I want questions from

Alistair Darling and answers from the First Minister. Clearly I'm

going to get nowhere with plan B. Let me ask you about another plan B,

oil revenues for the we talked earlier at the fact North Sea oil

revenues worth ?5 billion less than you expected last year which is more

than we spend on the schools budget. In the UK, that can be dealt with.

If you are an independent country and you just lost the equivalent of

your schools budget, how would you make up the gap? Sir Donald Mackay,

the advisers are 25 years to the Secretary of State for Scotland,

wrote last week and said there's no black hole in the oil estimates, the

UK Treasury and the OBR are missing a mountain. What if you are wrong

about that? Sir Donald Mackay day that estimate last week. When you

are Chancellor, you forecast the oil revenues would be 6,000,000,020 11

and in fact, they turned out to be 11,000,000,020 11. So therefore,

and in fact, they turned out to be why can't you do it? If you have

lost ?6 billion of revenue because production goes down, how old you

make up the difference when you have lost that much in just one year?

Production is going up, Alistair, and that's why all companies have

invested ?13 billion in the North Sea this year. They haven't invested

?13 billion into the North Sea because... Nobody can hear if you

are talking over each other. That investment is offset against

revenues but they are investing it to increase production. We know why

it is going up. Production will increase because 80%... We know

production is going up because of the UK subsidy that is going into

decommissioning but I'm asking you, in an independent Scotland, if you

suddenly lost revenues, the equivalent of Evelyn be spend on

skills, half on the health service, in just one year, how would you make

up the difference? That's exactly why the butt for the fund

stabilisation. Absolute nonsense. -- we put forward. Every other country

has faced this for 22... Scotland has spent more than it has got.

That's not true. It is true. Five years relative to the UK. Scotland

was ?8 billion better off all would have been... Alistair, you know

that. I know your figures. I have looked at your figures and you are

spending more than you are bringing in. The difference is a lot of

money. Alex Salmond, could you allow him to get another question? If

you're hit with a ?6 billion deficit, held on, identified by the

Institute for Fiscal Studies, which you quote in your White Paper, they

say you have to find ?6 billion more over and above posterity, how would

you find it? Are you going to raise taxes or cut services? Scotland will

be a prosperous economy whether it's independent or not. You had a

deficit of ?150 billion. Why can't you answer this question? Why can't

you answer this question? In a few day's time... He can't answer basic

questions on currencies. I'm afraid that's the end of your time.

Alex Salmond you now have eight minutes to cross-examine

How many children in Scotland is it estimated that will move into

poverty by 2020, given that Welfare spending cuts? Too many

children. How many? During the time in Government, we halve the number

of people living in poverty. It in Government, we halve the number

there are many. I wanted estimate. How many is the estimate? There are

too many children living in poverty. Would it surprise you to

know it is 100,000 extra children in Scotland moving into poverty with

the welfare reforms? Do you think it's a price worth paying for the

Westminster Government? I don't agree with

Policy. I'm a Labour politician and I want to see Labour Government

elected next year. The Labour Party... The Labour Party have said

they will continue with the welfare policies of the Tory Government.

100,000 children with disabilities, they've also been affected by the

welfare reforms. Is that a price worth paying for Westminster? As I

said earlier, as a society, we have an obligation to ensure we get

children out of poverty. Hold on a minute and stop interrupting. That

is why, for example, I found you, as a Government, have cut ?1 billion

anti-poverty programmes, 130,000 college places... So don't lecture

me on this. 100,000 people with disabilities. These are the people

who are suffering from Westminster Government for the it's all very

well for you decide your Labour politician, so why are you standing

here defending Conservative policies on a joint platform? Come on! I

disagree with a Conservative Government and with your Government.

I believe across parties, we are better as part of the UK, just as

you're in bed with some people who would normally want to be in bed

with. On issues of welfare reform, and stopping poverty, making sure we

are a fair and just society, I believe we can best do that with the

resources I come from the UK and not the risks of independence. The NHS

can't privatise the NHS directly in the way they do in England but what

they can do is starved of resources, cutting back on the money provided

to the Scottish Government. Do you think it's inaccurate statement? No,

the amount of money being spent on the health service has increased

throughout our tamers Government. That term as Government. Is it

accurate? It's for you to decide how much it is spent on health in

Scotland. It's a choice you make so don't blame other people for it. The

Scottish Government, that's not from them but from Unison, so is that

accurate? Given the health service... I know that. Everybody

working in the NHS or using it want to see it properly funded and

resourced but what I'm saying to you is the decision in Scotland is for

you to decide what you want to spend it on the fourth of the cutbacks

from Westminster, is at an accurate statement? Is an accurate statement?

It is an accurate statement? Don't play games thon. This is not games.

It's an important issue. This is the National Health Service. How much,

Alastair? How much? How much do your colleagues estimate to replace the

Trident nuclear system in monetary terms? I don't think you choose

either between defending the country and spending money on the Health

Service. How much? How much? The cost is over something like ?80

million billion Do you think that's a sensible use of money? I don't

think we choose between defending the country and the Health Service.

We can choose how to spend it. Don't you lecture me on that. Why are you

waving your hands at me? Is it a sensible, is that ?4 billion a

sensible allocation of resources when the Health Service is under

pressure? I understand there are many people who think Trident is

wrong. Is it sensible? Hold on. Let him answer the question. I do think

that we have an obligation to defend this country just as we have an

obligation to make sure we spend money on public services. That's the

answer to your question. Name three job-creating powers that the Better

Together parties intend to give the Scottish Parliament? First of all,

devolving the Work Programme - Job creating. The Work Programme does -

The Work Programme pays people poverty wages. Wait till you get the

answer. What three powers. The jobs programme first of all. Secondly,

making sure we guarantee if they're unemployed, getting back into work,

through work and training. How is that involved? And by maintaining

jobs in the financial industry, food and drinks industry, that's the best

guarantee of jobs in the future. Name two. If you can't name three,

name two. I've told you in terms of the programme for devolving work.

Name... Name one real job-creating Goodness me, power. Being part of

the United Kingdom means that we get jobs in the financial services ind

strip. What -- Industry. Jobs in science and re search and

developments. What are the job-creating powers that you are

going to guarantee to the Scottish Parliament if the 'No' campaign wins

the day? The Scottish Parliament has full powers... We've got them

already? In addition we have more powers in addition to welfare... Job

creating, Alastair. They create jobs. The public service creates

jobs. Critically what we do in the private sector as part of the United

Kingdom creates jobs. I'm sorry you can't see that. I'm asking what

powers are the Better Together parties going to transfer to the

Scottish Parliament to enable us to create more jobs, name three

job-creating powers. I've told you. No, you haven't. You mentioned the

Work Programme, which pays people poverty wages. Job creating powers.

I said staying part of the United Kingdom is the best way of

guaranteeing jobs in the future. That's not the question. What will

you transfer to the Scottish Parliament? That's the difference

between you and me... You're promising a powerhouse Parliament

name three job creating powers, it's a simple question. I've done that.

All you've got to offer in the white paper is a promise that whatever the

rate of corporation tax George Osborne thinks you'll make it 3 p

cheaper. Isn't that great for Starbucks and Amazon. It doesn't do

anything to create real jobs in this country. Name three that you're

going to give to Scotland. What are they? I've told you. Being part of

the United Kingdom gives the advantage of creating jobs in the

financial services industry, food and drinks industry. What we have

found out there's 100,000 children faced with poverty, 100,000 people

with disability. They're going to spend ?4 billion a year on This is

Trident. Absolute nonsense. He can't name three job creating powers for

the Parliament. You just made a wonderful case for voting yes in

this referendum. You can't tell me what money you'll be using, how can

you guarantee anything in public services. The time is up. That's the

end of the cross-examination section.

Now one of the striking things about this referendum campaign is

how many people have become actively engaged in the discussion

With turnout predicted to be 80% or even higher in September's vote,

town halls, offices and living rooms are alive with

Everyone should be voting. It's a very important decision to make. I

think this is an absolutely vital point in Scotland's history. It's

important that everybody should exercise their right to vote. It is

so important, it doesn't matter what your views are for yes or no, this

is a one-time in a lifetime opportunity to vote. It's made me

look at our system, our political system, what we need and really

understand how this country works and what I want. This could be

either the greatest moment in history of Scotland or the biggest

down fall. history of Scotland or the biggest

artist. I'm Val and I'm an employment advisor. I'm from

Shetland. I work for Scottish national I'm 16 heritage. And a

first-time voter. The referendum should be an opportunity to work out

what sort of country we want to live in and what sort of society we want

to live in. It's going to impact on employment. Funding for crofting is

essential to make sure that our heritage continues, whoever wins.

It's a once in a lifetime thing, get your opinions across and decide your

own future. I'm proud to be Scottish and not in a tartan and kilt way.

I'm proud of my country. I want to flourish. What it would entail and

was going to happen in the future, especially for this little man.

We'll be the ones trying to obtain mortgages, we'll be setting out

careers and trying to start up families. I think it's historic. It

will be a defining moment. It's not something that you'll be able to

overturn in the next five years or ten years if we shouldly change our

mind. It's -- should change our mind. It's important to get it

right. It's wonderful that everybody in Scotland gets to choose

regardless of which way it goes. Once and for all, it will be settled

by the referendum. Two sections still to come. We're going to look

at what happens after the referendum on September 18th. First we look at

Scotland's place in the world. Another question now from Brian

Connelly. I'd like to ask was going to happen when they scrap Trident?

What's going to happen to the jobs, the people and the housing after

it's scrapped? We quite identify certainly the policy of the SNP will

be going into the first election for an independent Scotland to remove

Trident from Scotland. Our policy is to have Faslane as the head quarter

base of the Scottish Defence Forces, which will create a large number of

jobs. The number of reports over the years have indicated that any other

expenditure would generate more jobs than wasting billions on weapons of

mass destruction that can never be used. But we are conscious of the

spoments we have to the Faslane area -- responsibilities that we have to

the Faslane area and we have identified it as the head of the

Scottish Defence Forces. That policy removes weapons of mass destruction

from Scotland because they are a phenomenal waste of money as well as

being totally morally wrong, but also, a policy which gives our

undertakings and our obligations to the local community in Faslane.

APPLAUSE In a few years' time, there will be

about just over 8,000 jobs employed in Faslane not just in relation to

Trident, but also because it is due to become the UK centre for the

non-Trident submarine fleet. If Trident were to go, then it's almost

certain that the rest of the submarine work would go with it. The

thing is integrated as you might expect. I think we can ill afford to

lose another 8,000 jobs from the Clyde and the west of Scotland.

Remember, there are other jobs, supply jobs and so on that are

associated with that. Never mind the cost of moving it. I also, I mean I

understand why people might feel very strongly or be against Trident

missiles, but simply to tow them down the coast into England won't

result them in being any less nuclear missiles. It won't reduce

the amount of missiles around but it will cost us 8,000 jobs in the

Clyde. It is fanciful to suggest that a much smaller Scottish Defence

Force will require 8,000 jobs in one place. They've been promised in

other parts of Scotland as well. I think it is the wrong thing to do

both in military terms, but also in terms of jobs. We cannot afford to

lose 8,000 jobs. It would be a massive blow to the west of

Scotland. I'm going to broaden this out, but the question is about jobs.

Alex Salmond, you talk about a ten-year transition to defence in

Scotland, an independent Scotland. How long would it be before Faslane,

under your proposals had as many people as it would have if we remain

part of the United Kingdom? We intend to do two things immediately,

because obviously we don't, we accept that Trident can't be removed

immediately. We've given a five-and-a-half year time scale for

the removal of Trident. As that is removed, it will enable us to build

up conventional Scottish Defence Forces. Faslane will be two things:

One, the headquarters of the Scottish Defence Force - But what

point do you get the scale of employment that is equivalent to

what is proposed as part of the UK? As terms of on-shore jobs, it's

going to be very substantial indeed. When will it be the same? In terms

of Royal Navy jobs, it will be considerable because currentsly we

have no surface ships in Scotland. No major surface ships at all.

Obviously, we should have surface ships to defend our oil insulations

-- installations, so between the surface ships and the defence

headquarters, over a period of time - What I'm asking is how long will

it take? As you rightly say, we look at a ten-year period to build up

Scottish Defence Forces. By the end of the ten years? Equally, it's

five-and-a-half years, the time table for the removal of Trident

nuclear submarines. Alastair says they're just going to tow them down

to England - Is it ten years, is that your guarantee? I think people

will make a choice, a sensible choice, it would be sensible not to

proceed with the next generation of Trident submarines. It might be

sensible not to spend ?100 billion over the next 40 years on this new

generation - We're still on jobs at the moment. Thank you for that, for

the moment. I go back briefly to the questioner on this, what's your

perspective? Well, I think to spend, he's talking about saving money, to

spend ?365 million to move Trident, and leave 7,000 people without jobs,

plus there is no other organisation to take these people in. You're not

re-assured that the jobs would be replaced by the Scottish Defence

Force? Not at all. On the other side in the middle. Given that removal of

Trident would open up the Clyde to allow oil exploration and drilling,

surely that would go some way to replacing any jobs that were lost by

removal of Trident? APPLAUSE

Thank you for those points. The Royal United Services Institute,

which is a respected think-tank, has said that it is possible to move

Trident, but that it would take until 2028 to do so safely. That's

eight years after your proposed time table, Alex Salmond. Would you be

prepared - Let me correct you. They argued that to move Trident it would

be possible within five-and-a-half years but said that the weapons

establishment would take longer. As part of the overall piece. Yes, but

you could move Trident in that time scale. I think five-and-a-half years

is a reasonable time scale for us to put forward in the white paper.

Would Scotland pay for the missiles and warheads to stay longer? I'm not

arguing that at all. I'm just saying what the royal united institute

said. Scotland is a country of 5. 25 million people. It is lewd cus to rb

ludicrous to suggest that we should harbour weapons of mass destruction.

APPLAUSE It's equally ludicrous that this

will generate more jobs because nuclear weapons are hugely capital

intensive. It is, after all, an Americans weapons system in the

first place. Any conventional forces will generate more jobs than nuclear

jobs ever could. There's two things here...

nuclear allowance for that it is make any sense. In relation to the

logistics, yes, the experts have said it could take until 2028 to

move it which suggests it could be very expensive and take a long time

but critically, in relation to the jobs, there are 8000 jobs at stake

and they are 8000 jobs at stake and they're not all nuclear. The Trident

missile systems, other submarines, the Clyde would become a centre for

expertise. On top of that, there's a risk to the Royal Naval work on the

Clyde because the Royal Navy does not build warships for foreign

countries. It's a huge loss of jobs and expertise which I am not

prepared to accept. What about the strategic side of all this? Lord

Robertson, a former secretary-general of NATO, has said

independence would be cataclysmic in part because it would force the rest

of the UK to unilaterally disarm itself of nuclear weapons for them

do you share that view? I think the rest of the UK come if they had to

lose nuclear western buttons -- weapons, then that would happen. The

greater concern is the disruption which takes place and the

uncertainties. You talk about a Scottish defence Force. Frankly,

they have not set out any coherent vision of what the Scottish defence

Force would look like and that talk about spending rather less on it and

as for the Trident savings, they will offer to spend it ten times

over. You can't be spending money you haven't actually got. Trident is

not at all like North Sea oil. It's a bonus for Scotland come in North

Sea oil. It's nothing like... To compare oil and gas with weapons of

mass destruction and to say they are comparable... Oil and gas is a bonus

for Scotland. Trident as a burden on Scotland. How on earth can you say

15% of your tax revenue is a bonus? It's an essential part. Don't

mislead people. You may want independence at any price but the

rest of us realise what you're doing is trying to make you can spend

money over and over again but you can't do it. It's a fact. Let me

pick up on another issue for the UK Government says it's not planning

for independence, not planning to move Trident, no plans for the do

you believe that? Yes, because the whole point of a referendum is to

find out what the will of the Scottish people is. If Scotland vote

for independence, then that is what's going to happen for them they

will know if some bats: No going back. That's why the decision is so

irreversible and why we've got to get it right and make it on the

right basis with our eyes wide open. No fingers crossed, no guesswork, we

have got to be absolutely sure. The reason they're not planning is is no

mandate to do that, there's no mandate to do that. Gus O'Donnell,

the former secretary to the UK Cabinet, said yesterday it was

disgraceful the UK Government had not made any plans for a Yes vote

for the death was agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish

Government. Isn't it reasonable we should had plans in the UK

Government because the sovereign will the people might be for a Yes

vote? APPLAUSE

I want to get back to my earlier question.

Are you saying, despite the fact the Royal United services Institute

reckon it could take until at least 2028 to remove nuclear weapons from

Scotland, which is your policy, are you saying you would negotiate on

that? I think five and a half years as a very reasonable timescale to

offer, as we have done in the White Paper. Our objective is to rid

Scotland of nuclear weapons. It's not a red line but open to

negotiation? To be a member of NATO, and not be a nuclear country, the

present secretary-general is the Prime Minister of Denmark on a

country. The next one is Prime Minister of Norway, the other

non-nuclear country. At the end of the day... Why is it not light froth

pillowcase OK for Denmark and Norway? Now we we we move onto what

happens after the referendum vote. The next question is submitted by

e-mail from Craig Lister. He says, in his view, this has been a very

divisive campaign, not just for politicians but for the Scottish

population generally. He asks, how will Westminster and Holyrood work

together after this vote and how will yes and no voters react to each

other? If someone asked me six months ago has this campaign been

divisive and will be difficult afterwards, I would've said not at

all. It's like an election, people have their differences and that's

it. It has got rather more heated in the last few weeks and that's not

surprising because both sides are passionate about what they believe

in and quite rightly arguing their case with vigour. I do think is

important that, whatever the result, both sides have to accept it. One

side will be disappointed, but we have to accept it. I hope people do

reject independence and I hope therefore people will work together

to build a better and stronger and a fairer Scotland, equally, if I lose

and he wins, I have to accept that that is it. We're not going back.

It's not just the politicians but frankly, for all of us. After one of

the longest election campaign I've ever experienced, we have got to

remember the next morning, we need to get on with things to make a

difference to people in Scotland, we should look at the problems we have

in the health service, education, transport, issues of social justice.

They all needed tending to put up we all need to work closely together

and I hope we can do that. APPLAUSE

. Can I say, I agree with what he is

just sat there. I don't agree about the campaign. I think this has been

the most extraordinary energising campaign in Scottish history but

people are going to vote that never thought about voting for a political

party. I think we're heading to a percentage poll of 80 percentage

plus for the the marvellous engagement in Scottish Parliament

for them it is usually exciting time for them in the aftermath, this is

operation to bring Scotland together, whatever the result. It's

going to be close fought and we have to bring Scotland together so, as

First Minister and pledging if it's a Yes Vote, I will accept the

obligation to have 18 months of negotiation between the referendum

and independence, not just involving the Scottish National Party and the

wider Yes campaign, but the best talent of Scotland, as part of the

negotiation team to get the best possible settlement for Scotland in

the negotiations. Alistair and I, if he was available, I would invite him

to join that negotiating team because once the referendum is over,

it's a matter of team Scotland. That is what we need. Thank you.

APPLAUSE Let me come back to that of the

moment for the final thoughts from members of the audience. On happens

after the boat. In the front row. That vote. You mention are going to

have a turnout of about 80% but how do we make sure people stay as

interested in politics regardless of the outcome? OK, the lady in the

back. In the event of a No vote, can Mr Darling tonne of what further

powers he'll become painful for Scotland? I think, so far, a lot of

the points I Better Together focused on the risks for Scotland but there

is no strong case being made to meet about no. The gentleman just behind

you. Throughout this night, Mr Darling has stressed Scotland should

not be relying on its oil and yet, your Government from Westminster

under the banner of the UK took Scotland into an illegal war for oil

and Scottish men and women died for that. Thank you. One final point.

The lady with the glasses. I think the fundamental difference is

The lady with the glasses. I think the Yes campaign are fighting for

the future of Scotland and Alistair Darling are fighting passionate for

their jobs. Thank you for those contributions. Alistair Darling, you

can pick up those points first of all. Briefly. I suspect the last

spoken I'm not going to win you over I think you're committed on the

other side but this isn't about me or him but about our children and

the generations that come after that. That's why we need to make the

decision, to make sure we make the right decision on September the

18th. Can I also take up the point from the gentleman there. I am

passionate about the case for us being part of the UK because of the

jobs, the opportunities as one of the security which comes. I thought

was great questions here but I can address this gentleman that was

questioned about how we can sustain the engagement, I think one

possibility is if it is a Yes vote, the formation of the Constitution

for an independent Scotland, the nation, and few societies

anywhere on earth have secured this opportunity to vote themselves into

independence. This is an opportunity peacefully at the ballot box, in a

process agreed and consented, and opportunity which may not come our

way again. So when we post about a ballot in the next few days and go

to the polling stations, we will take the future of our country into

our hands and have opportunities as an independent country and a means

of taking advantage of it, challenges as an independent

country, and we have got to rise to these challenges to solve them. In

contrast, all of the No campaign is absolutely nothing positive to say

about the future of this country. In reality, there is only one thing we

can guarantee and this is what a Yes vote can guarantee, each and every

election in an independent Scotland, we will get the Government we vote

for. The choices of other people of Scotland make will be reflected in

policy and that means what policies and the position of Scotland will be

placed in Scottish hands. This referendum is not about me and

Alistair and the political parties or the newspapers or anything, but

about the future of Scotland. And the future of Scotland should be

hands of the people of Scotland. It's about believing that we can

govern ourselves better than anyone else can. We don't need to rise to

be a nation again. The only have to vote to believe in ourselves for

them this is our time, our moment, let's seize it with both hands.

CHEERING Let's hear now from Alistair

Darling. You know, the country the size of Scotland can compare to what

Scotland has done, the successes of engineering, invention, medicine,

Scotland gave the world the age of Enlightenment. Of course, we could

go it alone but I don't believe we would be as successful as Scotland

will be as part of the UK. I believe we will do better, prosper together,

by building on the strengths as well in Scotland as well as being part of

a larger United Kingdom. Yes, I raised the issue of currency again

tonight because any country's starting point is currency, money,

just as every household depends upon money and uncertainty about currency

can bring a country to its knees. I know there are some who are thinking

about giving independence a chance. But when we can't be told about the

currency, I don't think that can be trusted. And frankly, scare stories

about the National Health Service I think are beneath contempt. We have

now had three and a half hours of prime television time when we have

debated and I still haven't heard a straight answer to a simple

question. Alex Salmond says you and I don't need to know what the plan

beers. Yes, we do. We do need to know for that we do not need to

divide these islands into separate states in order to assert our

identity. We can have the best world with as it is being taken here in

Scotland backed up by the strength and security provided by the UK --

plan Bs. I say we have no options as than to say politely, respectfully

and family, No, Thanks to independence.

APPLAUSE That is the end of our time.

All that remains is for me to thank Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond,

to thank our audience in Glasgow and to thank you for being with us for

this debate tonight. It continues across the BBC and radio Scotland

and on BBC Two Scotland but from all of us here in the magnificent

surroundings of Kelvingrove, good night.