The Big Debate - Choosing Scotland's Future

Your future is about our future. It Welcome to The Big Debate, choosing

Scotland's future. It is a big choice and it will be made by

Scottish voters in a referendum, but our politicians still need to

sort out the wording and the workings of the port. Today, the

First Minister published his referendum blueprint. -- vote. The

UK Government has already produced alternative plans. To ask the key

questions tonight we have a studio audience of more than 200 people

from all across Scotland representing a cross-section of

opinion. With the answers, we hope, Scotland's Deputy First Minister,

Nicola Sturgeon. The UK government's law officer for

Scotland, the Labour leader in Scotland, Johann Lamont, and the

writer and broadcaster, Lesley This is the first in what will be a

series of debates on the road to the referendum, and we're

broadcasting on BBC Radio Scotland, the BBC website, as well as BBC One

in Scotland. Let's go straight to her first question tonight. It

comes from Ashley Kennedy who is from Glasgow. Does democracy or the

SNP benefit most from David Cameron's attempts to take control

of the referendum. If the plan for David Cameron was to take control

of the referendum, I think it would be ill-advised of him to do that.

This referendum has to be shaped in Scotland and the people of Scotland

have to have the opportunity to make the decision. The First

Minister at has described issues of -- as brings questions of

independent scrutiny. I think it is in everyone's interests regardless

of where the art on the constitutional question, that they

have a process we can all signed up for. There should be independent

scrutiny and control by the Electoral Commission and so on, so

that after the result, we do not end up in court and accept the

verdict of the people of Scotland and then get back to working

together to help make Scotland a better place for our children.

to make clear, you as Labour leader stand shoulder to shoulder with

David Cameron and Nick Clegg on this issue? I stand shoulder to

shoulder in the same way that Alex Salmond stands shoulder to shoulder

with Brian Souter and Tommy Sheridan. Let me bring in Jim

Wallace. The point was that we were very clear that the Scottish

Parliament did not have the power under the Scotland back to

legislate to bring forward a bill for the referendum. No one wants

this. I am sure neither Nicola nor any of the panellists what that to

end up as a wrangle in the courts. That is why we said we should find

a way forward and we want to discuss it. What we have seen in

the last two weeks, we have made tremendous progress, and as Johann

Lamont said, these are not strings. These are what normal people would

think a reasonable conditions. go back to the question, does

democracy or the SNP benefit from David Cameron's intervention?

Democracy will benefit if we have a referendum that is decisive and I

do not believe that would be the case if it were to proceed on the

basis without loss. I do not think democracy would benefit if it ended

up in court. We must have a situation where whatever the

outcome, the other side has to follow. I remember the 1979

referendum when it was thought to be read by having a 40% threshold.

We cannot afford that in this case and that is why be dead put forward

a way forward under the Scotland Act and I think we have made

tremendous progress. There is some remarkable common ground between

what is in a consultation paper today and what was in the

consultation paper the United Kingdom published two weeks ago.

we will get that in a moment. Nicola Sturgeon, is it not possible

that you referendum could be challenged? If you could pick up

and appoint. We are very clear that we think the Scottish Parliament

has the confidence to hold an advisory referendum on independence,

but we have also said we have no objections to the section 30 order

that Jim Wallace talks about. What we object to, and many if not most

people in Scotland share this, his Westminster tried to call the shots

and that tax springs. Their terms for the referendum to be decided in

Scotland and it is up to the people of Scotland to determine that. We

are happy to talk can find common ground. Jim Wallace is right, that

some common ground has emerged over the last few days. Is it not

possible that you referendum without the legal authority he is

offering you could be challenged in the court? He if that is his

position and he wants to put that beyond any doubt, we are happy to

do that. I am asking you. You are a lawyer, is it possible? We have

laid out in the consultation today the question that we asked in a

previous consultation. We have conceded that to ask the question

we have set out in today's consultation, we would want to have

that transfer of power. Could it be challenged in court without the

legal authority? Any act of the Scottish Parliament can be

challenged in court but to put it beyond doubt, let us have that

power but let us not have Westminster tried to attach strings.

That is unacceptable. Let us look at those things. You want to not

just be the player but a. The referee. What is wrong with having

the Electoral Commission involved? You were denouncing the Electoral

Commission before you redeem it. have concerns. Westminster was to

restrict the choice of the Scottish people. We do not want to restrict

the opportunity of the audience to get in on the discussion. First of

all, the lady on the far side there. I would not call abiding by the

conditions of the Electoral Commission, stirrings.

gentleman here. Even in north and south Sudan, when they were joined

as the bustard Union of democracy, the North had to agree to the south

having a referendum. Even though that has not worked out, that could

be charged in court. Scotland are surely require a referendum to be

acknowledged by Westminster. I am baffled by political parties which

did only nine months ago on a platform of no referendum, not now,

not ever, no wish to dictate the terms of the referendum in Scotland.

Is that it seems to you, Lesley Riddoch? I think people watching

this will be incredulous about a lot of this. For heaven's sake, do

you think we are not capable and Scotland of holding the SNP to

account? Why do we need you guys in Westminster to tell us of... You

have had you say, to tell us how to run things. I was hoping I could

finish the question. The point is, we are fully capable. Johann

Lamont's point is the same. David Cameron has not help this one iota,

and the message is to stay out of it. We can run it ourselves. There

is a message to the SNP that the one man who dictate everything that

happens and Scottish Parliament should be good enough to work

across parties in Scotland to get a referendum without an agreement on

the process. I called For cross- party talks and these have been

refused by the First Minister. He wants to dictate the terms. We were

around be one of a consultation process and Alex Salmond said he

wanted to have the widest possible process and engagement with parties

and Scottish communities. It is the case that opposition parties wanted

to ensure there is independent scrutiny and control of the

referendum, and it is disingenuous of Nicola to say this is about

Westminster stepping in. It is about other voices in the Scottish

Parliament being heard. She just agreed that there will be

consultation. We had a not discussion this morning because I

got a letter from the First Minister saying he did not want

cross-party talks and in the chamber, he dead. There needs to be

at genuine engagement, building consensus on the process, so that

when we divide on the question of where Scotland should be, we can

come back together after the referendum. Thus far, and today,

there has been a suspicion that Alex Salmond thinks a referendum is

for him and him alone to decide. We need to have that independent

scrutiny. I think the fact there will be power to make it legal and

binding helps all of us both up a I want to hear more from the audience.

Can I ask who gave the SNP the legal advice that what they're

doing is correct? I will get Nicola Sturgeon to pick up on that. Is it

not rich for Lord Wallace to hold a position, being a Lib Dem, on a day

that when David Cameron says that the European Court of Human Rights

does not give us the decision we want, we will pull out of it? How

can we trust what you are telling us, you do not believe it? Should

independence actually go through, what will be the provision set in

place if Scotland realise is in ten years' time that it does not work?

Would there be a provision to rejoin the union in that case?

don't think that will happen but none of us can bind future

generations. After the Second World War, there were about 50

independent countries in the world. Today, there are around 200 die and

are not aware of many who want to go back the way. The SNP basically

believe Scotland will be better if it is independent and that is

difficult to have a national debate about what the strengths and

weaknesses of both options are. Lesley Riddoch, would it be best if

the courts sorted this out? If no UK politician is going to look at

the fact of the SNP's election win, the fact that we are here, and is

going to start playing petty politics, and we have really seen

some of this lately with William Hague not promoting whisky now,

supposedly. Malcolm Rifkind thinking England will go off and a

half. It is as if a very petty side of UK politicians has been shown

and actually, you need to raise your game. What we're trying to do,

we did except that the Scottish National Party won a very important

and historic victory last May. We recognise it, that in their

manifesto was a commitment to hold a referendum. We wanted to make

sure that was on a sound legal footing and to make something

productive. That is fine, thank you very much, they get over it and do

it. We will do it and what we'll do... Don't start criticising us

Even if you do not get a deal on your terms? The so-called

conditions that attached are ones that we are finding common ground

on. There is nothing about conditions of strings being

attached if what you are trying to do is to have been neutral

Electoral Commission trying to oversee us with their experience.

That is what I believe that millions of ordinary Scots want to

see - a definitive result. Why do you not just give what it's in your

gift to give -- what is in your deft to give -- gift to give?

want to move forward on a constructor basis. We are having

talks. We need to discuss the substance of why Scotland should be

an independent country. Can I get a word then? I would like to ask what

happens if the SNP goes ahead with its own plans without having

reached a deal with the UK Government on legal authority? What

happens if the legislation passes through the Scottish Parliament, is

due to be sent to the Queen for signature, what do you do then?

could get a any did and -- individual in Scotland to challenge

it in the courts. I do not think that would be healthy or good for

democracy. If it survives court challenges, at that point back,

passed by that Scottish Parliament, do you a ferret to the Supreme

Court -- do you refer it to the Supreme Court? You have already

said that it would be unlawful, legislation beyond the Scottish

Parliament. Would you refer it to the Supreme Court? I do not wish to

embark on a hypothetical situation which I am doing my utmost to avoid.

That would be failure. You would be unwilling to go to the Queen for

signature? Would you allow that to happen? I have the statutory duty

to look at every bill that passes through the Scottish Parliament. I

do not wish to find ourselves in a situation where the scores to the

Supreme Court. It would not be in the Scottish Government's interest

or that of the United Kingdom. It would not be in the interest of the

people of Scotland. That is why I think it is imperative. The sooner

we get this thing sorted out and we can debate the issues, the far

healthier it will be for democracy. Let us get on and debate the merits

and otherwise dull independence. Would you let the Queen sign up?

is not a question of whether I believe... You are a law officer,

it is your job. almost any cities in in Scotland could take it to

court before I got in the door. We cannot allow that to arise. That is

why we need to talk. Nothing could be fairer than that. Another

question. This is from Sheila Hayes in Clydebank. What good reasons are

therefore having anything other than a straight yes or no question

on the form? I was in Holyrood today and the politicians spent

most time talking about Devo Max, the thing that none of them

supports in-and-out driveway. is to have more power us in the

devolved parliament short of independence. Yes. Should we change

to a situation where we raise our own taxes? That is scary, that is

where we're going with independence. Are we capable? Do we trust our

cells? Do we think this country has the wherewithal to support itself?

This is the Kelvin MacKenzie argument. He thinks we cannot. But

that is at the heart of this - do we think we're capable now? There

may be some people who do not want to go the Full Monty, if you like,

to independence, but do not think where we are is satisfactory. There

is an ability as far as to spend without the responsibility of

raising the money. Personally, I think we ought to have that

responsibility. I think that is what will make us grow as a set of

people. I think there are few folk who will agree with that. I would

quite like a full debate that does not get dictated by two extremes -

one being the status quo, the other being independence. Those are the

margins, that is the spectrum. Where is the middle of this debate

and can those people would vote positively for something in this

referendum or just end up kind of stuck? I know there are all sorts

of technical problems in providing that capacity for people. I am fed

up of being stuck in situations where I am saying no, when I am a

positive person who believes in the country. I bet you there is nothing

else. People are all positive about this country. We need a way to say

yes to what we believe in. And that is more than two options. Johann

Lamont. First of all, I think that the First Minister tried to

misrepresent the position of those people who do not believe in

independence or separation. I think it is a huge choice but it is not a

choice between that and what we have now set forever Amber Day. The

devolution settlement is something that has been a radical change in

my lifetime. There were recent changes that have come in as well.

I think there does have to be further discussion about how we

make that work. For people to say that the only choice within the

devolution settlement is Devo Max, is not fair. I think it is a good

idea to create tax competition within the United Kingdom. -- I do

not think. Do you believe in more powers for the Scottish Parliament?

I think there is wasteful competition and the only people who

benefit are big businesses. The power should live with it is most

effective in delivering the social change we all aspire to. Should you

not be championing the package of powers? What I am championing is

the idea that we have that debate. What we should not let this debate

on how devolution is sheet to be characterised as something to stop

independence. It has a different life of its own. It is a debate

about where power most effectively lives to deliver to the people of

this country. I would take power into local government and beyond.

How do people reach out and get control of their lives? Where is

the best place for the power to lie? Where power lies is not about

which institution feel stronger for having it, but how do we make sure

that power is directed in the interest of the people? It is a big

debate that cannot be picked on a ballot paper as if it was something

to stop independence. All this business of a second question and

the so-called Devo Max option, let's move on from that. Let us

hear from the gentleman with the red tie. My problem with Devo Max

is that it only comes into play if we reject independence. Then what

we as the Scots are saying is that we want to be part of the Union,

but we want to be able to dictate our position within that union. I

do not understand what democratic right of mandate we have to do that.

It would have to be tested across the UK. It is not a question purely

for a Scottish referendum. It implies federalism and a complete

reorganisation of the UK constitution. The gentleman on the

end here. The SNP stood on a platform last year of independence.

That, in my opinion, should be the only up -- the only question put to

the Scottish people because you do not have a mandate for anything

else. APPLAUSE Let me put that in Nicola

Sturgeon. What is the reason for having

another question? It is that there are lots of people who want

significant powers for the parliament short of independence.

It is not the outcome my favour. I came -- I favoured independence and

I will campaign for that. If there is a significant body of opinion

within Scotland that once that third option, if we can call it

that, how can it possibly be democratic for any politician or

any political party to say, no, you're not allowed to have that

option? I think it is rather strange that the political parties

that are now trying to restrict the choices of the Scottish people in

this way are the same political parties who, for the last four

years, blocked having any referendum at all. Let's be

democratic about this and let the people decide. Don't you agree with

the referendum expect who has been asked by the First Minister to

advise on this that, if you have two different propositions, you

could end up with muddy Waters? do not believe it is beyond our

capability to come up with a way of doing that properly in a way that

gets to a decisive outcome. have you not done so in today's

consultation? We want to hear, firstly, whether there is a demand

in Scotland to have that on the ballot paper. You frame the

question in your last consultation, why not today? It strikes me that

we are criticised if we pre-empt those consultations and glia

criticised if we do not. We're trying to here -- and we are

criticised. We are trying to hear the views of the Scottish people.

It is not far as to decide the future of Scotland. We all have our

opinions and they are all valid and legitimate. The people who should

decide are the people of Scotland. I don't believe it's democratic,

certainly not at this early stage, to seek to restrict the choice is.

I think it is absolutely right that we have a straight question, yes or

no to stop them becoming independent. The consultation

document says that is the preference. Nikolai is talking

about whether it is democratic. What we have heard over recent

months from the Scottish government was that, if Devo Max was on the

ballot paper, 85% supported. -- support it. If 51. -- give 50.1% of

people supported independence that would trump the 85% I do not want

to be in that situation. It would not be decisive. The debate would

go on. The Scotland Bill before Westminster at the moment will

deliver substantially more powers. But we can go beyond that.

would you and your party deliver on that if not by putting a question

on the ballot paper? Shehzad Tanweer different issues. One is

whether Scotland should be independent or not. If the people

of Scotland decide to continue to be part of the United Kingdom, I

think we can have a lot more confidence to build on what is

there in the Scottish Parliament. The Gentleman is right, it has

implications for the rid Europe -- for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Our Scottish leader has set up a commission. One final thing, it was

the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats in the constitutional

Convention who made the first step. The Calman Commission was the

second step. It has been done by consultation and building a

consensus. Nothing to do with the SNP? No. They opted out on both.

Gentlemen and on that -- in the back row. Is all this talk of Devo

Max not some way for the SNP to claim victory if the people of

Scotland said no to independence? On the other side. Surely Devo Max

is a completely separate issue and should only be asked if the

independence referendum fails? We could ask if people wanted greater

powers short of independence, but not at the same time. The Lady

there. With such high unemployment and lots of different government

departments receiving cuts, do you think it is appropriate to be using

so much of the Government's resources on one issue? What do you

think? No. The consultation today suggested that the process would

cost around �10 million. That is for the whole referendum. It is a

large sum of money, I am not saying it is not. The alternative vote a

referendum last year was one that nobody wanted. I think this is an

important decision. I think it is right that we debate how we get the

powers in Arab -- in our Parliament to tackle unemployment and get the

economy growing. That is what independence is about. Jim, do you

believe in federalism, and, Johann, do you believe that the Scotland

Bill is enough? It is a significant step forward. I want to engage in a

debate with people across Scotland. I do not want to be nasty, but just

Then you can frame a question to get the answer you want. I'll give

you the answer I believe in and I want to be part of that discussion

and not come out with a little box that the fines for other people

what they should be like. I think I had the ball and stupidly passed it

to you. It is my ball! We expect political parties to frame up

solutions we can think about and you're not doing your bit and

neither are you. We'll move on. Let me mention before we move on that...

You can come in and just a minute but I want to mention there is a

new Web page on BBC Scotland news where you can find all the details

of BBC Scotland's coverage of the referendum. Let's take another

question now from our audience. Still on the details of the

referendum proposed by the Scottish government. What is the panel's

opinion is on lowering the voting age to 16? As a general policy

across the board, I think there is an argument for it but they do not

think it is right as a one-off. It has a whiff of a bit of a fix their.

There are other issues. For a start, it would not be all 16-year-old but

only those on the register. You may find a lot of 16-year-old would

find out they're not on the register to vote and I think that

would be a serious way of misleading them. The other point is,

what a preference would be, that the electorate that bought on a

referendum would be the same electorate that votes on the

Scottish Parliament and gave the SNP their majority last year, and

the same franchise is a referendum in 1997. Its -- if it was good

enough in the 2011, surely it is good enough for the referendum.

What did Nick Clegg means when he said I'm a big supporter of... At

16. -- votes at 16. I think there will issue should be looked at but

not just in this particular case. What about this case for word?

have a lot more than just for a referendum and involves a lot more

than just Scotland. I think what Nicola has to say it is what is

wrong with actually using the same electorate, the same franchise, as

elected you and your colleagues in May last year. I have always argued

that the voting age should be ward to 16. If we allow people to

register for the army or get married and they -- have children,

then we should allow them to vote in elections and especially in a

referendum about the future of their country. Do you think that

younger people were more likely to support independence? I do not know.

Older people increasingly support independence and that Paul out

tonight put support and opposition neck-and-neck. Support is

increasing across the age spectrum. It is a matter of democratic

principle. What can be wrong with giving people that contribute to

our society at a say and how that society is run. The lady in the

front row. You said he did not believe that people who voted for

the SNP at the last election should have a say. Let him make it clear...

If that's what you believe, that the way it came across. Do you

believe anyone who turns 18, people who do not get in vote then, if he

should not get the vote either? think there has been a

misunderstanding. The franchise that was used for the election last

year is the same as the local government franchise, and its

everyone in Scotland over the age of 18 including European Union

citizens but excluding non-EU citizens. It is the same as that.

What age are you? I'm 20. You will get a vote. I'm 15 years old so and

2014 I will be 17. What gives you the ability to deny my right to

therefore shape the future of the country I am going to live in.

ahead. The SNP keep going on about democracy and how great it is.

Surely the real cases that the SNP know that 16 and 17 year-olds are

more likely to vote for independence. It is political

Engineering, not democracy. If that is true then that must also be the

reason why a other parties are keen to stop 16 and 17 year-olds voting

in the referendum. There is always political expediency to bring

things forward. Why were women given the vote? To help with the

war effort? When the moment comes, you have to match the excitement

and possibilities and do a bit of a democratic spring clean. It is

funny how often everyone wants 16 euros to vote when it is their pet

project that might get put forward. When is that a letter every up --

ever going to arise when apropos of nothing, we begin to think

creatively about who we are and who is eligible to vote? If it does not

come in tandem with a proposal like this, when lot come? I would say

that is the same as the difficulty with the wall proposals about Devo

Max, because I would expect you to have been thing about this for such

a long time, also with federalism, that you ahead -- ready to hit the

ground running now with things you intend to do. This suspicion when

you cannot do it is that you need these guys in the middle to rub

your up the wrong way before you focus on these democratic deficits.

My life's work and politics has been to empower people on to give

them a voice, so I am absolutely clear that what politics is about.

One of the lessons we learned last May it was that we were not

listening to the people of Scotland and they did not have confidence in

us. It is bizarre to suggest that I should suggest my view immediately

ahead evolution change and the problem with Devo Max as it is

defining for all of us who believe in evolution, how that should be

expressed. If the figures in Scottish independence are so strong

and if we need those powers to address the fact that 200 people

every day are losing their jobs in Scotland, why are we delaying

another 1000 days to get those powers? It makes no sense. This is

a member of a party that refused to vote for a referendum throughout

the last four year term of a Parliament. Not true. I am not sure

we should take too much of what Wendy Alexander was saying, she was

contradicted within 24 hours. bottled it. I have never bottled

anything in my life. We laid out a time when today for the referendum

and Johann Lamont has looked at the time when, I am not sure if

everyone in here will have had the opportunity, and that is the

timescale that gives us a chance for a proper consultation. It

allows the Scottish people to have a proper discussion about the

biggest decision we will taken 300 years. I am looking forward to that

debate. In 2009, they published a document and Alex Salmond said he

wanted a referendum on St Andrews Day, 2010. When they were a

minority government, they said they wanted it the following year, but

now they have the chance, they want to put it off. You can have it both

ways. When you say you didn't have the power to do it but thought it

could be done next year, was that just posturing? Do you except the

timetable? It is not a condition of your offer? We said we will discuss

it. There was talk of an 18 months' time frame, has that got away?

There is nothing in a consultation document. Bottom 2014 is OK for

you? Come down, Glenn. Let me answer one question at a time. I

would rather have it sooner than later. It is their interests are

people of Scotland to get on with it and get this decided and back to

the normal business of politics, addressing issues. This is a poster

be about 16 and 17 year olds and Johann Lamont did not answer that

question. I was not ask it. There is an interesting debate about 16

and 17 year-olds. The force of the argument is that you can go to war,

you should have a vote. The other challenge, and the challenge in our

communities, why is the permits so poor for the Scottish elections?

The problem is apathy and disengagement entirely from

politics, which is not simply about giving somebody the right but

giving them the feeling that it is worth their while. People rather

feel there is a bitter political calculation going on. We have said

we are open to the idea of 16 and 17 year-olds being involved in the

political process. Just not now. Let's take another question from

our audience. Where are you? To the economic benefits of independence

it way the economic costs? Benefits outweighing the costs. Nicola

Sturgeon. I do believe that Scotland has a wealthy country and

we pay our way within the United Kingdom and more than pay our way.

We are rich in so many ways, and assets, in terms of innovation and

ingenuity other people. We could be much more prosperous and socially

just as an independent country and I think the benefits are huge. I

believe that with every fibre of my being. Let me give you more details.

Looking at the FA last five years for which we have figures, and

these are not SNP figures but government expenditure and revenue

figures, the balance sheet for Scotland, if you like. In each of

these five years, the UK as a whole was running at deficit. For four

out of these five years, Scotland were running at a surplus. We are

rich and we should be putting the resources of this country to work

for the people of the country. think we're better off together as

the United Kingdom. Can I just say, I am sick to the back teeth of

always being told by SNP sportspeople that if for some

reason you might suggest we are better off as part of the United

Kingdom, you're talking Scotland down. There is no question of

talking Scotland down. Scotland has so much to offer but I believe we

can be far better off as part of the United Kingdom. Let me give you

a simple point - figures out this week showed that Scotland's exports

to the rest of the United Kingdom where �44 billion. The next country

with the United Kingdom at three -- �3 billion. Why would you wish to

disrupt the single market that has brought so much benefit. That is

scaremongering. There she was again! If you actually want to

advance the case, and have a decent debate, the minute you say

something they do not agree with, you are accused of scaremongering.

That is no basis for a decent debate. For you just said we would

not be able to export the invested United Kingdom. That is nonsense.

You're completely misrepresenting what I said. I am saying, you do

not put up barriers. The single market of the European Union - what

barriers? If you had a separate country, you have all the

transactional costs. He what barriers a week talking about? A

you say you want to stay with the pound Stirling. It is not unique,

but there are not many barriers that actually adopt the currency of

There are 60 countries out of the 200 in the world that operate a

monetary union. Scotland's interest we would be imposed by the Bank of

England. Alex Salmond was reported as saying yesterday that you would

have the Bank of England bail Scotland out if there was any

question of default. On what terms would they bail us out? Where are

the barriers? I where is your independence? You would not have

fiscal independence if you depended on the Bank of England being a

lender of last resort. Would the Bank of England be the lender of

last resort? If we were in a month treaty -- a monetary union we we

could still have fiscal independence. Our position is to

remain within Stirling. At an that would mean the Bank of England was

the lender of last resort? Yes, but let me talk about the benefits to

the rest of the UK. Can I ask a question? Basket in a minute. This

was the number one issue that people ask questions about. Let us

start right at the back. -- asked questions about. I find it

astonishing that, on the panel tonight, none of them have any

consensus whatsoever on the economic debates. It is one of the

big issues facing this referendum. Over the next two-and-a-half years

surely from the army of civil servants, academics and so on, you

can finally put together one page of financial bat up but we can look

at and walkout whether Scotland is a viable economic entity in its own

right. Thank you. The lady here. Personally, I do not see that the

economic thing is the biggest. Sometimes countries have money,

sometimes not. We are in a world recession just now as the UK, so

what is to say that Scotland would not benefit? Perhaps, at times, we

would not be as well-off. The point is that we would be in charge

ourselves and would be able to make our own decisions. I wonder if

Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond had been brushing up their German.

Do they not realise that by keeping so quiet about this that there is

every possibility that we will not be able to stay within Stirling and

will be forced to join the euro and then we will be governed by their

lend -- by Berlin? The man in the back row. How ridiculous is it that

we will have the Bank of England as the lender of last resort? I am

sorry, that just seems ludicrous to me. One more from the audience. De

gentleman with the glasses. similar point. There seems to be

accorded to the buyers about the union and staying in it. I think it

is a decision that people will make with their Hearts above all. You

were talking about the psychological comfort of staying in

the Union. If your argument for staying in it is psychological, so

should you argument for leaving. Johann Lamont. People who really

want to separate off from the United Kingdom, Alex Salmond has

always had the same solution. It is not an economic or social argument.

I do not feel oppressed by the English. I do not want to be

liberated by Alex Salmond. I APPLAUSE.

He said himself today that Scotland was not in need of liberation.

does he want to create a situation where we have a race to the bottom

and the people who suffer -- the people suffer because we have less

money. Someone would need to explain to me why the partnership

and co-operation that has lasted for 300 years should be separated.

Wade someone to talk about the modern-day challenges that people

face. The question was would be economic benefits outweigh their

economic costs? I think that the partnership of the editing the

makes economic sense. If the people of Scotland make that choice, that

is their choice, but let us not have a false debate which says,

this is the reality just now across the United Kingdom and over there

is a big jar of honey and everything is absolutely perfect.

Let us test economic questions. The question of the pound is a mink --

is an important one. We might allegedly have independence but

there is no accountability on monetary policy that we could

influence. I do not see how that is to Scotland's benefit. We need

Scotland's distinct voice in the partnership to be made strong.

most depressing thing that I have read over the last couple of days

was the scientific finding that suggests that Scottish children are

doomed to fail before they are even born. We have not tackled the

problems of inequality in our country. And that is with whatever

economic system we have had, whatever political parties we have

had within the Union of Great Britain. I would like, before I

pass out of his life, to see that one tackled. In fact, that is the

only one I would like to see tackled. As long as we tackle it

for children across the United Kingdom. It is not just the

Scottish problem. Do you think, do one, but that will be tackled well

by people who currently want to slash benefits? Absolutely not. My

problem with David Cameron is that he is a Tory, not that he is

English. The question is: Can we create a political process which

tackles social justice across the whole of the United Kingdom? I do

not want to limit my ambitions to make children within Scotland

better off. I believe the United Kingdom... No, but if you look at

Norway, you have exactly a different situation where you have

much better outcomes. When they became independent in 1905, the

average male life expectancy was 48. They had no oil, nothing. The point

that was made earlier was true. If Scots think we should become

independent be better off, we probably will not be. There is

nobody that I can think of who did it differently.

And thank you very much. I want to squeeze in another question while

we still have time. Assuming Scotland votes for independence,

would Scots be able to keep their existing British passports or would

we be required to get Scottish passports? As it happens, I have a

British passport here. This is what you get at the moment. Would it be

of any use at all in an independent Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon? We would

have a Scottish passport, but my passport says EU as well as British

citizen. That is the point - we have right of free travel. We can

go to the Republic of Ireland without a passport. I do not think

that the debate should be about passports or border controls. That

is more of the nonsense we have heard down the years. It should be

a positive debate about the positive relationships we can have

with others. What do you mean by dual citizenship, the concept you

propose? Our concept of citizenship is inclusive. Scotland is not full.

People who live here would have Scotty citizenship and other people

could apply. So there would be two passport? People could have that

choice. I suspect most people in Scotland would be proud to carry a

Scottish passport. APPLAUSE Jim Wallace, with the rest

of the United Kingdom be happy to continue issuing UK passports to

people in Scotland's it is one of the imponderables.

Citizens of the Republic of Ireland have always had some sort of

preferential right to vote, even before European Union citizens had

it. In that sense, it could well be that Scottish citizens butt it is a

hypothesis I do not necessarily accept. The important point is, and

I think everyone will agree, we want to get on and have a debate

about what the issues are and what the position would be about

citizenship. I think the sooner we can have that kind of debate but

might we are doing it now. Of course we are, and more of it. I

think it is important that people know what the prospectus is. It

should not just be by assertion, it should be about detailed analysis.

Best of both worlds, Johann Lamont? I would rather concern today that

the First Minister said that people who live in Scotland care most

about Scotland. In fact, a lot of our young people are having to be

Scott and for work. They are not leaving because they do not have a

commitment to their country. I think the First Minister has to be

careful in that regard. I do not get excited about passports. But

then, I do not get excited about boundaries. We operate across

boundaries, we come together. The technicalities of which passport to

have I will lead to those who get really excited about it. I have to

say that I am the same. I grew up in Northern Ireland and we

regularly went across the border. This is a country where people have

got fairly exercised about national issues. This seems to me to be not

what this debate is about. If it is about trappings and passports,

please, let's move on to the heart. This is not what we want to talk

about. Let us see what the audience wants to talk about at this stage.

The gentleman here. Unionist parties are falling into the same

mistake they made in May of fighting a negative campaign with

the scaremongering tactics. Surely they should do their job and fight

for what they believe them and express why the union is so

beneficial, if that is their opinion. Gentlemen at the side.

millions of people around the world, the union means imperialism and war.

We have weapons of mass destruction in Faslane. These are the issues we

need to sort out. These are the issues that an independent Scotland

can get rid of. We want to make them a political history. The

galley in grey here looks like a relic and he talks like a relic.

APPLAUSE I think the issue of passports does matter because, if

you're travelling overseas, at present it you have a problem you

can go to a British embassy. Is it the SNP's intention to

franchise the British Embassy in the same way they will abdicate

their fiscal policy to the Bank of England?

The lady in the back row with the glasses. It is all very well

talking about passports and being proud of holding one, but many of

us who are unemployed, it is not money that comes easily for the �60

or �80 you have to pay to a Ford one to have that privilege. Thank

you very much for all those contributions. One last question.

Has Alex Salmond annoyed the English so much that they are going

to want rid of us anyway? APPLAUSE He managed to annoy quite

a lot of Scottish people! On the question of negativity, it

was the First Minister's Ministerial Mayday who said that

people who disagreed with the SNP - - Ministerial aide who said that

those who disagreed with the SNP would against toddler. I want a

positive bargaining. My belief is that it is about co-operation and

partnership in tough times. Lesley Riddoch. Simon Hughes said this was

an opportunity for the whole of the UK to freshen up and look up what

is basically an non functioning democracy at the moment. The

English need a parliament. The West Lothian Question is as much to do

with the English not having a distinct place to air via issues as

it is anything to do with us. This is an opportunity that could be a

tremendous one for England, and it is opening a Pandora's box.

Wallace. I think it is an opportunity to have a wider debate.

One of the problems with an English parliament is that it would be as

centralised as the Westminster Parliament. A growing appetite in

England for Scottish independence? I hope that is not a tactic,

although one sometimes wonders if it is. There are people in the

other nations of the 80 Kingdom who value it and you want to continue

to be a part of it. Final point from Nicola Sturgeon. Alex Salmond

was in London last night. Winding up the English? No, making the

point back that there were benefits for the English. I would be furious

that there are Scottish MPs who can vote in the House of Commons to

impose tuition fees on English students, to privatise the health

service in England. If Scotland is independence then Scotland and

England will be the best of friends and the closest of allies, but it

will be a modern relationship, that of eagles. That is the very last