The Dimbleby Interviews Scotland Decides

36 hours from now, the future of the United Kingdom will be decided as

Scotland votes on whether to become an independent country. For months,

the argument over this issue has been raging here in Scotland. But

it's only now as the polls show the vote narrowing that the significance

for the whole United Kingdom has become apparent for our economic

future, our position in the world. I've been talking to two of the

protagonists in this issue. Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland,

leader of the "yes" campaign and former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown,

who wants Scotland to vote no and is offering instead home rule.

I'm joined in Edinburgh by the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

Mr Brown, many people on the "no" side acknowledge that an independent

Scotland can survive and even prosper in the long run. Do you

subscribe to that view? I would hope that under any circumstances my

country, Scotland, could do well, but it will not do as well under an

independent Scotland. It's absolutely clear. We have seen all

the evidence now. The uncertainty over the currency. We have seen the

problem over the debt default. We have seen the problem over higher

prices in the shops. We have seen the problem now over higher interest

rates. We know that there's... Do you believe all of that? I believe

all of it. You cannot ignore all of the experts all of the time. Let's

take one issue, debt default. Alex Salmond said that because England

would not deal with it, he would default on his debts. What message

does that send out? Everybody watching this programme in any part

of the United Kingdom, if you say you're not going to pay your debts,

nobody lends to you. The debts belong to England. The Bank of

England has said it will back the debts? The Bank of England will pay

out. Scotland has no obligation to the debt. He is then known as a

defaulter, someone who goes back on debts and refuses to pay. People

don't lend and interest rates go up and sometimes you are charged more

if you refuse. I think that's the most irresponsible statement of the

campaign, because he's sending a message to the whole of the

international community, Scotland is volunteering it might default. Look

around at everything else, uncertainty over the currency. Look

at interest rates, they're bound to go up. Food prices. Tesco, trex,

charges -- for example, charges 12% more in southern Ireland and

inevitably if you are a smaller economy and you have to have the

loss of the cross-subsidy of prices the prices will go up. Now you are

all doom and gloom. You began by saying you would agree with people

who said an independent Scotland would triumph. Hold on, I'm a proud

Scot. When I left Downing Street I came home to Scotland. My children

are brought up here. My children are at school here. I want to see a pat

oTic -- patriotic vision of Scotland, proud of identity and

history and institutions, the churches and education. Proud also

of our Scottish Parliament that we created, the Labour Party actually

created. Proud we have agreed there are to be more powers for that

Parliament, but proud also that we found a way, we led the way as

Scots, in sharing and pooling resources across the whole of the

United Kingdom so we have UK pensions, a UK welfare state and

currency and UK defence. I'm proud that as a nation we have our own

Parliament, but at the same time, we get the benefit from something I

don't think people in Scotland want to lose. They don't want to lose UK

pensions, but that's independence. They don't want to lose the pound,

but that's the effect of independence. I have to say to

people, I want Scotland to be successful at all times. To be

honest, I'm addressing Scottish voters here, my fellow Scots and I

could talk at any time to talk about the English and Welsh rple

indications, but -- ramifications, but I want to say I've looked at

this very carefully and I know the risks that are associated with this

proposition. I know also that Alex Salmond has not thought this through

and if you have any doubts you've got no alternative, if you are

thinking of your children and your children's children, because this is

a vote for future generations. You have no alternative. This is not a

party political broadcast for the "no" campaign. This is being seen

throughout the United Kingdom and the question I want to ask you, on

behalf... But David. On behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom,

what is the value of a union when you appear to be at this stage,

having to cajole even bribe Scottish voters to stay part of it? Because

sometimes people have to be reminded, when change is in the air,

everywhere I go, people want change in Scotland. You can have the right

or wrong kind of change and in your desire to can make the wrong

decision. I've got to people reminding people that the sharing

that takes place, the co-operation across the United Kingdom, has

brought immense benefits not just in war time when we fought fascism, but

in building the Health Service and welfare state and pensions. Scotland

gets huge benefits, so too does the rest of the country. Now you are in

the bribery business. You have come up with proposals for what you call

home rule. This very day, the three party leaders have said they back

what you have said apparently now the leader of this campaign, not

Alistair Darling. Not at all. You are the person who has been leading

for the last two weeks and it looks like a last-minute panic to bribe

Scotland to stick with it. I've been saying this for some time now. I

wrote a book months ago and I have been giving speeches. This is a new

world. We are in the 21st century and we have to reshape the union, so

we have patriotic Scots proud of their institutions, wanting to make

decisions closer to home, but also wanting to know that they can

continue to be part of a sharing process within the United Kingdom.

And I think that's the way forward. The alternative is this - you break

every single political link with the United Kingdom. You break it on

pensions, passports, the pound, on everything and I don't think that's

where people want to be. They want change and I can see why people want

change, but they want the right kind of change and I've had a duty to

point out and to ask the party leaders to make it clear, three

things, the Parliament will have the powers promised and that will be

legislated soon. That's at no cost to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Fairness is the principle that governs the United Kingdom, equity

between the regions and nations and anybody watching this would agree

that the United Kingdom must be based on fairness and equity. Then

I've had to say, because of the charges that have been made by the

SNP that the NHS is in danger if you don't have separation, I've got to

point out and ask the leaders to point out, the Barnet formula that

allocates resources will continue and also the Scottish Parliament has

powers if it wishes to do, so ask the Scottish people to raise revenue

so that you can have a final say in Scotland over how much to spend. We

have had to nail that lie and that's what he's done today. I'll come to

the practical politics of that in a moment, but sticking with the idea

of the union, because when you became Prime Minister,

interestingly, you seemed to spot a problem here. And you had a period

when you were talking about increasing a sense of Britishness in

the United Kingdom. You wanted to have a British national day, people

laughed at the proposal and people should hoist the Union flag. This is

a long-standing problem about separation from the United Kingdom?

It's to the just -- it's not just, it's worse and worse and worse? No,

in every generation you have to rethink your relationships. We have

four nations. We have got this unique multi-national partnership.

Go any place in the world, whether you go to Europe and look at France

and Germany or Australia and New Zealand or whether you go even to

the States within America, there are no four nations on Earth that have

managed to combine and share resources and to have the same

economic and social lives for each citizen, irrespective of your

nationality that Britain has. We should be proud that we persuaded

people to create a welfare state and persuaded of the benefits of UK

pensions and this is something I don't think we should want to lose.

That's what uphold the strong sense that Britain a huge contribution to

make, but I also understand that in England and Wales and Northern

Ireland as well as in Scotland, there is strong a sense sense of

patriotic pride in the culture and traditions and institutions, so

every generation we have got to find a way of combining the strong sense

of identity that exists in each nation, with the desire, I believe,

the willingness, to share as part of the United Kingdom and no set of

countries in the world has managed to do what we have done. It is the

most successful multi-national partnership in history and that's

why I want to keep it, but keep it because I know also it's got

benefits for each of the nations. Why have the people who have said in

your own party and in the Conservative, that devolution of any

kind would be a slippery slope towards independence? Why are they

apparently being proved right in this sense, that the move towards

independence has grown in Scotland over the years until you now reach a

kind of 50/50, we don't know until Friday morning how Scotland has

voted, but why has that happened? The idea was that devolution would

solve this problem. They are not right, because if you held a poll

throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, but particularly in

Scotland, because I'm addressing directly my fellow Scots this

evening, the vast majority would want to keep the UK pension. The

vast majority want to keep the pound. The vast majority want to

keep the UK funding. They want -- Why not vote no? They are going to

vote no. The vast majority will vote no? I believe the vast majority will

vote no. The vast majority want to keep the welfare state and pensions

and pound and as a result I believe I can persuade these people to vote

no. They want change. They want a strong Scottish Parliament. You and

anybody in the English regions would not wish to deny the Scots or the

Welsh or the Northern Ireland people the power to make their own

decisions on transport, environment, health, housing and education and

universities. These are big decisions. Perhaps in 1997 we could

have given more powers to the Scottish Parliament. Now more powers

are coming. But remember, that is as part of the United Kingdom. Keeping

the principles that underlie the United Kingdom, which is said today

equity between the regions, so we can maximise security and

opportunity for all. It's curious. I notice the Labour Daily Record here

today gives all the details and then says, the three leaders saying, "We

will honour the principles and values, not only before the

referendum, but after." That is a bit of a weird thing to say? Not

only until Thursday, but on Friday morning too? I think they want to

make it clear that even if there is a distrust in the political system,

even if people think that Westminster is not a great place for

them to look to, that people have had to think long and hard about

this. And these are vows that are set in stone now, that are important

for the future not just of Scotland, but the United Kingdom. I could

illustrate that by talking about the Health Service if you wish me to do

so. I'm interesting though just in sticking to the idea for one moment

of whether in your view, as a Scott -- Scot, over your lifetime as a

politician, you have seen England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland

drifting apart, that the tendency has been that, that's why you have

to do Britishness and there is a tendency to pull apart? You see,

since the union of 1707 and I have had time for reflection, as you

might understand, since I lost power, there is always a strong

sense of Scottish identity. It's never gone. It's the myth that

somehow it would be destroyed by the union. In fact, it's strong in our

institutions and sporting institutions and culture and

history. In the 20th century and 21st, people are looking for a

balance, the recognition of the identity and also preparing to

co-operate for common and mutual services and mutual needs. I think

you misunderstand. You are majjing either or. I'm saying that the

fallacy is to put Scotland against Britain. These are two visions, one

a strong Scottish Parliament within Britain and that's what I support

and that's why I'm calling for a "no" vote and the other vision is of

Scotland apart from Britain, where we break every single link and I

went through all the risks that that could accompany and that's not what

people who are desperate for change in Scotland. I don't think they want

to break all the links. You made a speech a couple of years back in

memory of Donald Dewar, the distinguished Scot and you

distinguished there between Scotland having community values and England

having individualism as a value. Those are two conflicting ideas. I

actually said, if you look at the final points I made, I said it's the

come bip nation of -- combination of the Scotland and English support for

liberty that has made the union of Britain what it is. You have this

great coming together of two great ideas in history, but when it comes

down in practice to what that means, if you take support for the Health

Service in the public sector, free at the point of need, 90% of English

people, 90% of Scottish people believe exactly the same. When you

go through the actual detail of individual policies about taxation,

or about the public services, I find that most people in England and

Scotland believe the same. Yes, we come from different traditions, but

yes also we have absorbed them, so Scotland came to recognise the value

of liberty. At some points in history we were quite an

authoritarian country. Also, England, Churchill talked about the

English sense of fair play and I think that was in part the merging

of the tradition of fairness and egalitarianism and liberty that came

from the English debate at the time of the civil war. We have come

together. There is a cross-fertilisation and I think

people in England and Wales and Northern Ireland and also in many

cases, share the same approach to most of the issues that I'm talking

about. Why did everyone assume the vote was

going to be no thanks in the first place? Why has it narrowed so much?

What have people seem in Salmond 's argument that has appealed? People

want change. Item they want the change he is offering. They want

change. They are unhappy with the position of the global economy,

status and prospects for children. They share that with people in

England and Wales as well. Until a few weeks ago, perhaps they thought

the only way they could achieve change was going for independence.

Now they know it is crucial you have a stronger Scottish Parliament, part

of the United Kingdom. That was always my view. Why did you leave it

so late to announce? With respect, it was two weeks ago that you

entered centre stage and have been centrestage ever since, explaining

these things you may have been talking about in meetings over

Scotland but nobody had heard it. You have come up from London for a

day trip. All right comic you have come up for two days. I have been

speaking in Scotland over these last few years. It may not have been

reported in London newspapers but it is in Scotland. Today it has been

done with a clear resolution of the individual parties, I have said we

put in print what we have said to each other. We set up a commission

of the Labour Party to review devolution. I believe that people

understand now, and take some people to get the message, that there is

change coming. Change is definitely coming and it is a stronger Scottish

parliament, part of the United Kingdom. We do not lose what we have

got. The pensions are UK, defence we have not talked about. Military, air

force, army, navy. That is still part of the UK. People do not want

that change. When people say they have that change as part of the

United Kingdom they will reject the risks that a company with breaking

links. You are an old Labour man. What about the risks of having

another Conservative government dominating Scotland? There are many

people in Scotland, there is one Tory MP in Scotland, who want to see

the back of the Tory Party. They remember the poll tax, the bedroom

tax. At is what they want in Scotland. We will never have Tories

in Westminster deciding our fate. The Conservatives are in power

because of a deal with the Liberal Democrats. Three quarters of their

life has been under a Labour government. The idea that Labour

cannot win an election and we are permanently having Conservative

governments, it was exploded when we won the biggest majority of any

government at any time. That can easily happen again. Why struggle we

are not saying there will -- you are not saying there will never be a

Conservative majority... That is what Mister Better Together seems to

be saying. If people are looking to the Scottish National Party, they

need to look no further than the manifesto. -- that is what Mister

Salmond seems to be saying. There is no proposal for a bankers bonus tax.

The only tax proposal is to give a cut in tax to the richest companies.

It is the directors of the richest utilities that get a better fit. The

Scottish National party are not offering a route to social justice,

only the Labour Party under a Labour government is offering maps. An

independent Scotland would have a permanent Labour government? I did

not say that. Those people who take Scotland to independence,

nationalist parties remain in being. That is what has happened in

Ireland. Do not believe that the Scottish National party can offer

you social justice. Do not believe it is impossible to have a Labour

government in the rest of the country because the evidence is

pointing towards that. The biggest argument is not these things. You

cannot give up because you do not like 1 Conservative politician or a

1 conservative policies on the system of sharing resources. It is

of huge benefit to Scotland. I defend it in principle because it is

based on allocating resources dependent on me. Scotland gets ?200

per pension or because we have got more pensioners with greater needs

and more disabilities. 900 million to 1000 million more comes from the

Barnett formula. We have historically had more pensioners and

greater needs. I justifies these -- justify these additional

expenditures. What is being committed to by the leaders today in

this bout that they support these principles of equity and Scotland

has benefited from it. In my view, we would be throwing away something

that is, in principle, the right basis for forming alliances and

cooperating. If Scotland were independent, 40% of Scotland voted

Labour in the last election. If Scotland were independent, the

chance to have socialism and labour is infinitely greater than if they

remain run by the Parliament at Westminster. If you vote independent

comic you throw away something that is irreplaceable. You cannot bring

it back. We share across the whole of the regions and nations. 5

million people can pool resources. You cannot achieve what can be

achieved like that. There will be no Conservative government investment

if the people of England and Scotland combined disabling really

say about some of their policies. Waitangi cannot say that. There will

be no Conservative government at the next election. -- you cannot say

that. You are thinking 50 years, 100 years ahead. The principle I am

talking about will survive one or 2 Conservative governments. The

principle will survive a few Conservative politicians who annoy

people. The principle is bigger than me as an individual or one

particular period in time. I do not think there will be another

Conservative government. I believe the Scottish National party cannot

produce the progressive policies we are talking about. Underlying my

argument is a big principle, what is the point of giving up a system of

sharing and cooperating which has been of great use to the United

Kingdom not only in defence and security but in welfare. You cannot

replicate that system of fairness in a smaller nation when you have got

it across 63,000,000 people who are prepared to share and cooperate for

the common good. That is the principle that underlies the United

Kingdom. It would be a shame to send out a message to the world that,

after all these years of building it up, when countries struggle to find

a way of living side-by-side, we could not continue it into the

future. I think it would be disastrous for us to destroy. You

have been talking in the last couple of weeks about home rule. You have

these 3 party leaders today signing this thing, saying they would go

along with it all. What persuades you they will get it through the

House of Commons? What persuades English, Welsh and Irish voters, we

will go for giving that part of the United Kingdom that degree of

independence and freedom? I think there is a movement for change in

the United Kingdom. I have always believed undiluted Westminster

sovereignty is not the way of expressing the needs and aspirations

of people. Scotland may have led the way. Northern Ireland once

devolution as well. London has already gone. Devolution. I believe

there is a movement of change taking place which encourages the regions

to want more powers. Those people in Westminster looking at that will see

this as not just something specifically for Scotland. Yesterday

I said my fairness principle is not at the expense of the regions and

nations, it was a challenge to London centralisation. Do you think

there will not be hostility in England, the largest country in the

United Kingdom, to these measures that you are offering Scotland? It

does seem to be that you are giving Scotland everything they want? Most

people would subscribe that we are not advocating fairness at the

expense of someone else. The greatest beneficiaries of the

pension system are the north-east of England. You do not understand, it

is right because it is based on need. There are greater needs

because they are 3rd of the land area of the country. They have a

high number of pensioners. The north-east gets the best benefits

from pensions. Wales gets the best benefits from incapacity and

disability benefit. London benefits the most from housing benefit. We

pull resources from across the whole of the United Kingdom and it

benefits everyone because needs better met irrespective of

nationality. No country in the world has managed to do what we have done.

I think people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland recognise we have

something very precious that it would be a shame, in a world that is

becoming more integrated, more connected, more interdependent, to

throw away this form of cooperation that make such a difference. You are

putting forward a vision of the future of the United Kingdom. The

reality is that on Thursday the people in Scotland will vote on

whether to stay in the UK or not. In effect, what you are doing, as many

commentators have said, is rewriting the whole constitution of the United

Kingdom, in order to keep Scotland in it. You are saying, everything

have to change. I am saying we need a debate on the constitution of the

United Kingdom. If they vote yes, you have already started. The truth

of the matter is the debate is ongoing about the Constitution of

the United Kingdom. Many people are contributing. Wales once more

powers, London is talking about more powers. In the regions you will see

a demand for more powers. I am saying this is the right way ahead

for Scotland. It makes sense for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is

not at the expense of the regions and nations. It is a demand that has

come from Scotland for change and it should be meant. More powers for

Parliament, fairness as a principle of allocation in the United

Kingdom. We need to raise revenues ourselves on the National Health

Service we can fund it properly, irrespective of what happens. This

is, is it not, the last round. Looking at the United Kingdom, a

historian will say, it was a gradual step. We did this, we did theirs.

Even if they know any win this referendum, in the end, Scotland

will become an independent country. I do not think so. Tides of opinion

rise and fall. We have had to modernise the United Kingdom and, in

particular, the role of Scotland in it for the 21st century. We had to

make big changes in the 20th century with the creation of the welfare

state. In the 19th century, there were institutions for the industrial

revolution. The United Kingdom has evolved through that. Once the

Westminster sovereignty, unity state, is at an end, people will

recognise the diversity, power-sharing, everyone feeling part

of the United Kingdom. A patriotically for Scotland on

Thursday ensures we have more powers for Parliament but, equally, we have

Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. Thank you very much.

I am joined now by Alex Salmond. I wonder whether I shouldn't be

congratulated because you seem to have got the best of both worlds.

You have the option of independents and now Gordon Brown is saying you

have been offered home rule for Scotland. It is too early for

congratulations of any kind. This campaign has 2 days to go. We are

working flat out. We are still the underdogs because Westminster has a

huge amount of ability to throwing kitchen sinks, half the living room

and probably some of the bedroom at us. My feeling is that people are

determined to vote yes on Thursday but we will be working flat out till

the polls close at 10 PM. Hasn't the no side said, what most people want

is home rule. That is what the Prime Minister said. This is not Devereux

Max. That is economic control. -- devo max. This is a rehash of what

was offered in the spring. When it was offered in the spring, when

people took a look at it, people in Scotland said, it is nothing like

enough for study does not give as economic control. -- like enough. It

does not give us. It is last-minute, desperate stuff. There is no content

in it. It is very little in terms of economic powers and next to nothing

in terms of other powers. For people who are nerve, cautious, may it not

They are not Labour voters. These people are Scots who normally vote

Labour. We are seeing lots of people who would normally vote Labour have

been hugely attractive to the optimistic message of the yes

campaign that we can create a stronger economy but also a more

just society. The key figures on legendary. That is why there has

been such a movement among Scots who want to see a more prosperous but

also more just society. The wonderful proposal where they

had a right to increased tax but not reduce it. I think that is a pretty

strange thing, nothing like home rule, nothing like devo max. It is

an insult to the intelligence of the people of Scotland to rehash these

proposals last-gasp in the campaign and hope beyond hope that people

think it is anything substantial. It is not. White Rabbit gives Scotland

votes no on Thursday, do you think it will be implemented? -- if

Scotland votes no. the last time he signed something

was on tuition fees, which they then promptly broke. David Cameron has

already faced a bloodbath to use the words of Tories, in terms of John

Redwood and others, saying that this can't be countenanced, so he's

already facing a resoleT and we're not past the referendum. As for the

Labour Party, they're actually, in their proposals on the strength, had

the weakest of all, even weaker than those of the Conservative Party,

which tells you absolutely this is not home rule. It is a

next-to-nothing offer at the last minute because of the substantial

movement to yes. The fact that it's caused such a fuss in Westminster,

if it has, suggests that at least the Conservative Party in

Westminster thinks there's something substantial in it, otherwise they

wouldn't be campaigning? That's true. The people are Scotland are

less easily fooled than the backbenches of the Conservative

Party in Westminster. We'll talk about the people of Scotland. We'll

talk about the United Kingdom. How do you feel when you see nearly 80%

of the rest of the United Kingdom wants Scotland to remain in the

union? I think that's an interesting statistic. I think when people

elsewhere in the United Kingdom understand and realise that we are

not going anywhere, we are not drifting off to the north poll, but

-- North Pole, but we'll be best friends and neighbours and we'll run

our own finances and reap our own harvest and check our own tills in

Scotland, but we'll still be part of an island where we'll have a share

of a common border and we'll not have customs posts or any 19th

century nonsense. We'll be part of the island and great friends, best

pals and good neighbours. That may all be true, but nevertheless, the

rest of the United Kingdom, the alarm seems to be on two fronts,

one, the damage and we'll talk about money in one moment and the economy

and that possible damage, and the other is, the damage to the

international standing of the United Kingdom, that it won't have the same

clout in the world as it does have with Scotland. I think that's an

argument about what makes a country great. Some people in Westminster

think greatness is about having nuclear weapons and being on the

Security Council of the UN and participating in the illegal

invasion of Iraq. Some 11 years, that is. I think greatness comes

from the strength and vitality of culture, the hinterland and the

compassion of the society and the approach you make to others. I think

England's a great country. Not because the UK possesses nuclear

weapons. I think England's a great country because it has enormous

unparalleled hinterland and offered a great deal to the world. That's

what I think makes a country great. Scotland can be a great country,

because we have a heritage of what we should be proud of and we have a

modernity and future of which we can contribute greatly, but you should

speak to the rest of the international country, not by saying

how great you are, but how useless you are and contribute and offer. On

that basis I think the true greatness of a country depends.

Nevertheless, you, for over 300 years -- Not me personally. No. It

may feel like that in this stage of the campaign. For 300 years Scotland

has been part of the United Kingdom and wielded with the rest of the

United Kingdom huge international influence and power. You can cite

examples with the Iraq war, where you disagree, but you are turning

your back on Scotland ever again playing that kind of role in the

world. It's more than a disagreement about the invasion of Iraq. For

many, it was a turning point and tipping point in terms of their

attitude to this question. When the UK did something I was starringered

by in terms -- staggered by in terms of flouting the international law

and participating in an illegal invasion and causing the death

therefore of hundreds of thousands of people and the tragic things we

see across the world now, giving an open door almost to extremism by not

even planning for the aftermath of that conflict, that was a major

issue and that was something which is not just, oh well, that was

unfortunate, it was a dramatic illustration of why a country should

not look to achieve greatness in wanting to participate in an

adventure like that. Is that enough of a reason for leaving the world

stage effectively? Well, with great respect, I don't think Scotland is

going to leave the world stage. On the contrary, we are a nation of 5.

25 million people. We don't want to dominate the world. We don't want to

be a world power in that sense, but we are not without influence,

because our people in Scotland, we have 100 million people who

associate with Scotland worldwide and many of these people hold huge

and influential positions in government and business and

elsewhere and so our influence is based on the concept and idea of

Scotland and it's a very attractive idea. There was a book talking about

Scots inventing the modern world. That's not something we can say

directly, although we quote it occasionally. That sort of influence

is the influence that Scots will be able to bring. I think we can make a

substantial, not dominating, but a substantial contribution to the

world affairs. Is the option of independence a risk-free option? No,

every country has problems and issues and every country will make

his takes. I think -- missteaks. -- mistakes. We'll have challenges. We

won't wake up in the spring of 2016, after the negotiation and find on

Independence Day Scotland has no challenges. But what I think we'll

have is better means and mechanisms of overcoming the challenges. That's

one of the attractions. What are the risks that voters run by voting

"yes"? I think the risk is in terms of not doing something about the

circumstances. I think the biggest challenge facing Scotland and indeed

most of western Europe is a demographic challenge. Most of

western Europe has a challenge looking forward of a shrinking and

working-age population and growing older population. To tackle that we

have got specific ideas and specific measures but they depend on having

the powers of independence. We lose 30,000 people under 35 ever year,

despite the relative success now of the Scottish economy. If you want to

travel the world that's great and the wonder of the 21st century, but

people shouldn't have to leave Scotland to find economic

opportunities. You can't force them to stay? No, I don't think anybody

should be forced to say. It's wonderful if people want to seek

opportunities elsewhere, but you shouldn't have to leave because you

can't find opportunities. You shouldn't be forced to leave by

economic considerations. Then there's the people who want to stay

and work and contribute to our economy. The people who we educate

and raise as human capital. The present government kicks them out of

the country and won't let them work and as a result of that policy we

have seen a halving of the number of Indian students in the last few

years. I say let's create opportunity for Scottish youngsters

so they don't have to leave the country and if people like Scotland

so much that they want to use their skills, many of them which we have

contributed to for our educational system, then let the people work in

our country and make the country more prosperous. You have said that

people who say they're going to vote "no" are actually deferred "yes"

voters, in other words, everyone really believes in your view. We'll

come back to the issue of risk and fear. What is it do you think that

is holding people back then from supporting the case for

independence? What is it, because you hear people always and they've

had many warnings from banks and businesses and people about the

value of property and the cost of mortgages, a load of things thrown

at them about the downside of voting "yes"? And they are fearful, aren't

they? Certainly for some business, yes, but not from banks. For

example, RBS, the Chief Executive, was very quick last week after the

Treasury was misbriefing and releasing information that it had to

right to release and very quick, the next morning, to write to every

single employee and say -- Standard Life? It would not affect jobs,

investment or transactions carried out in Scotland. We'll absolve the

banks. What about all the businesses that have been lining up, either

leaving or prices going up? I know you picked them off one by one and

can say they were influenced by Number Ten. Is everybody lying about

the downside? I never used the world about lying about the businesses,

but it's not a question of picked off. Or being insurance fluenced by

Number Ten. We know for a fact that David Cameron invited the big

supermarkets a week past and asked them desperately, because he can't

win the campaign politically if they would say something hostile about

Scottish independence. Some unfortunately did. ASDA for example,

but many others like Tesco and Aldi said no, this is not their

businesses. They don't want to play politics. They want to be businesses

and well done for them for resisting that crude pressure from Downing

Street. The Prime Minister's fingerprints were all over it. It's

demeaning for the Prime Minister to be reduced to scare tactics

desperately in a campaign to try to use pressure to be agents of the

project fear, which is disastrous. Do you think you would cut more - I

don't know what the word is, have more effect, let's put it like that

in this debate that's been going on for the last two years, if you were

willing to admit on your side that there were risks, if you were

willing to take on board people's fears about what might happen? Not

in terms of challenges. Every country has challenges, but is there

a downside risk? The reason I chose the demographic issue... It's not a

risk. It was presented as a risk. The image is that we won't be able

to afford pensions because the working-age population will be

shrinking. I think the one which is probably the most effective of the

older people in Scotland is exactly that. What I'm pointing out is

that's a challenge for all societies. We currently have a low

dependency ratio than the UK as a whole, but if you project forward we

have a challenge, but we can overcome that, by encouraging young

people to seek a future in their country and helping and assisting

people who want to be part of this wonderful society we have in

Scotland. Now, once an elderly person is satisfied as we have

satisfied people in this campaign, that pensions are secure and a

minister from Scotland will be paid from Scotland, then the debate

becomes different and it's about the future. That's why I think it's so

important for us to say, yes, that is a challenge for Scotland. This is

how we are going to overcome it and this is how we can build a better

future for our country and on that basis I see a significant movement

of older Scots to the "yes" campaign. Can we talk about the

future? We'll go as far as Friday afternoon, say. And there is a "yes"

vote. And as many are predicting there's a run on the pound, there's

chaos in the stock markets, what would your responsibility be then as

the First Minister of Scotland to help stabilise that?

This is why we have the Edinburgh Agreement. David Cameron said we

would not have Devo Max. It would not even appear on the ballot paper.

We wanted a clause that said after the result, both governments accept

the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland. Before we get to these

circumstances, a reiteration of that agreement and its importance will be

a fundamental priority for both the Scottish and the London government.

There is a slight problem. There is no advantage in scaring people any

more. There is a slight problem. Whatever is in the best interests of

the people of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, the people of

Scotland have said they will become a foreign country. Let me just

finished. The Prime Minister and the Westminster politicians, the

Government there, will be looking after the interests, not of the

United Kingdom. Can I just take you up on this foreign country

nonsense? In 1940, I think it was, Ireland became a republic. It was in

much more difficult circumstances than this democratic, peaceful

process in which we are engaged. In that act, there was a phrase,

Ireland will not be regarded as a foreign country. England will not be

regarded as a foreign country. It is our neighbour and partner. The no

campaign has been served so ill over the last few months because people

have examined that sort of bogeyman tactic which has been dragged into

the sunlight like Dracula. What will you say about the money in Scotland,

about sterling? The Treasury says, you cannot have 1 currency was

Scotland. You are out on your own. What will you say on that Friday

when the markets are turbulent? The Bank of England has not said that.

The Treasury has but the Bank of England has not. Governments will

work together. After 10 PM on Thursday, there is no point in

running a negative campaign any more. People get down and discuss

the future and act in the best interests of the people of Scotland

and the rest of the United Kingdom. Also to make it clear that the

Governor of the Bank of England is responsible for financial stability

over the next 18 months. That is a fact. It is an 18 month period of

figures she Asian. Over that time, the Bank of England is in charge of

financial stability. We want to take out the two nomination or risk that

we intend to have sterling as our currency. -- the denomination risk.

That may not be on Friday but over the next week or two, you will find

unnamed Cabinet ministers who will say, of course there would be a

currency union which will come out of the columns of the Guardian and

into the sunlight to explain why. The anonymous minister, who was

quoted as saying that, said Scotland wants a currency union and we want

to keep Trident at fast lane. There is room for a deal. He said he would

have to give something big in return. He said, of course there

will be a currency union. He talks about trade-offs. I have said

Trident is not a negotiating point. We put forward a timescale for the

removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland which is not unreasonable.

It is a 5 one half year timescale in the White Paper which I think is a

pretty reasonable thing to put forward. In that report, people tell

me it is an Anonymous Minister but I think sometimes anonymous quotes

have more of the truth than ones which are made in person. Do you

think you know who it is? I do. I am not the journalist concerned so I

cannot say. Another interesting thing in that report was to explain

why they were adopting an aggressive stance against currency union. It is

about Alastair asking us to do it for the campaign. All of that get

swept away once the results are in at 10pm. That is when people sit

down and act in the best interests of the people of Scotland and the

United Kingdom. Making it clear that the Governor of the Bank of England

horror as he has made it clear, three weeks ago, he has said he is

in charge of financial stability. We will see that the campaign is over

and people start to talk sensibly with statements like, of course,

there will be a monetary union. That will prevail. If you are wrong in

that, what will you do? I cannot be wrong in the first two. I talk you

can be wrong with the currency union. You were asking about

Friday. I believe there will be a currency union. The verdict of the

Scottish people will be very important. The Edinburgh Agreement

says we will acknowledge this process and accept it. You have been

extremely rude about Westminster politicians. Your website calls

them, the most distrusted politicians ever. The most

distrusted, you said. People in the papers today are so distrusted. They

are rude about each other but they are standing shoulder to shoulder.

There is an element of scepticism among the public who say they are so

opposed to each other but can link hands, joined arms, and march up to

Scotland and tell us what we can and cannot do. -- join arms. Why to use

say you distrust them. I must take you at your word. -- you say you

distrust them. Everything you want in the negotiations will go your

way. You do not like it being called a foreign country but an independent

Scotland on the one side and the rest of the UK looking to its own

interests on everything, oil spending, the breakup of resources,

Trident, whatever it is. It will be hard, difficult, and not necessarily

going away. I will tell you why the negotiations will be positive... Why

they will be positive, is the old phrase of Adam Smith. We are in the

land of Adam Smith. That is why we find it so demeaning to be told we

cannot run this economy successfully. He developed the

concept of enlightened self interest. People acted economically

because of self interest, which could contribute to mutual self

interest. The reason it is important is England is Scotland 's largest

trading partner and Scotland is England 's largest trading partner.

It is in the enlightened self interests to get on with each other.

Not just for Scotland but it is joint interests. It does not mean

the rest of the knee are ticking doom should agree with every point

of the negotiations? -- the United Kingdom. Bill Aa reasonable

settlement is at the heart of proposals. -- a reasonable

settlement. We have said, you need to have a reasonable timetable. We

have tried to adopt that approach so life is not made difficult for

people. You take the whole travails of the Westminster system and the

rest of the European Union at the present moment. That's just assume,

as I hope, that the rest of the UK decides to stay in the European

Union and does not get dragged out by the Tory and UKIP strange dance

that is going on at the moment wouldn't it be great to have 2

voices on a lot of officials, as opposed to being isolated totally?

On many things, we are an independent Scotland and an

independent rest the UK. The fisheries policy is one example. We

talked about the reluctance of the rest of the United Kingdom to see

Scotland become independent. Are you not worried there will be a backlash

against all of this? A vast majority of voters do not want to to have a

currency union. Would the politicians at Westminster

inevitably respond to that? If there is a swell of opposition to

Scotland, simply because they want to cut loose, they could say, cut

loose. Nothing to do with us. Trade is very important. I would never

demean the people are being them by saying they are represented in terms

of attitude to Scotland or anything else. By Tory backbenchers at

Westminster. Let me answer in this way. I have made many speeches in

England over the last few years. My feeling is whatever peoples attitude

in England towards the process of Scottish independence, and there is

substantial support. My friend, the MP for Liverpool Walton, he thinks

it will start a process. There are active supporters of Scottish

independence. The overwhelming majority, the view of the plain

people of England will be, the Scots have made their decision, whether we

liked it or not, we wish them well, as we will wish England well. That

would be the prevailing view of the people of England, who I have the

most extraordinary admiration and confidence in. Thank you very much

indeed. A great pleasure. or to stay part of

the United Kingdom? The BBC's online coverage will keep

you up to date with every development with live streaming

of the key moments, expert opinions