The Big Debate - Choosing Scotland's Future

It is about Scotland's future, Good evening and welcome to the

programme. This is the second in a series of discussions in the run-up

to the vote on independence in 2014. What ever you hope and concerns,

expectations or reservations, we will give them an airing. We have a

studio audience with people from across Scotland, representing a

cross-section of opinion. Fighting for taking part. Here to answer

them are Patrick Harvey. Nicola First question. I would like to ask

the panel were living in an independent Scotland could do for

me. What living in an independent Scotland could do for Karen and

others like her? First and foremost, independence means the big

decisions about Scotland and the future of the country, how

resources are spent, are taken by people in Scotland. We are a rich

country with a skilled population, abundant natural resources.

Independence gives us the ability to use those resources to create

wealth for families, individuals and communities, to improve social

justice and to take decisions do not have Trident nuclear missiles

on the River Clyde but instead, use those resources to benefit people

in Scotland. It is about putting the power and the decision-making

in the hands of people who live here, the people who care most

about the future of Scotland. power already lies with the people

of Scotland. We will have disagreements or myth and up to

date. -- on this panel. We all love Scotland and we just had different

ideas about what is in the best interests of the country. Why do

not want this to be a false choice between who loves Scotland and who

hits the Tories. Scotland has played an important part in

creating the success of the UK. 300 years of shared history, should

security ensured prosperity. Scotland was the founder of the

Bank of England, a Welshman created the NHS, an English man at the

Welsh -- the welfare state. Scotland's best interests lie

economically, politically and socially been part of the UK. We

can stand stronger in partnership as part of the UK. That is a

positive case for the UK. Can I ask, what do you hope an independent

Scotland can do for do? I hope that an independent Scotland can give

Bath a much more prominent economy and make life better for the people

of Scotland. Better jobs, better conditions as well, living

conditions. Is that is what is going to happen? We do not know. We

do not know what is going to happen to the Scottish economy if we vote

for independence. We do not know what is going to happen to the

Scottish or British economy if Scotland stays in the UK. We are in

challenging economic times. We have seen the failure of a centre-right

neo-liberal economic model which has been the flavour of choice of

UK governments, whether it is Labour or the Tories, with or

without the Liberal Democrat helpers. The opportunity to break

our dependence on that economic model is the opportunity to make

our own successes or failures. None of us can tell you all know what is

going to happen to the local economy, the national economy or

the global economy over the next few years. The opportunity that we

have is to take a new direction, to start working out some choices. It

is important we debate is openly. By the time we come to the

referendum, more than two years away, we have specific proposals

and the pro independence parties, myself and the SNP and others, and

people who are asking you to vote Yes, need to be much more specific

by the time we get to the referendum, rather than sign it can

be all things to all people and all the policy decisions will be taken

after the referendum. We need to be clear and give people a positive

reason to vote yes. To me, that means transformation of politics

and moving away from the centre right dead hand that we have seen

over the last 30 years, gripping the UK economy and politics.

gentleman on the front row. have just brain -- blamed the new

liberal centre-right, but go back to 2007. Alex Salmond wrote a

letter to go up -- to Fred Goodwin. That was picked up by Channel 4

News, and in it he offered every assistance for Fred Goodwin in

eight fired will take over. That led to a financial collapse. The

Royal Bank of Scotland would have been a Scottish bank under

independence. In 2008, Alex Salmond travelled to Harvard and made his

infamous CAB the Gleision speech, wishes mysteriously missing from

the SNP website. -- his infamous Celtic Tiger speech. Alex Salmond

said there we should be in the euro. At the moment, he is saying none of

these things. The centre-right neo- liberal agenda that may well have

failed, Alex Salmond bought into that. We will be discussing a few

of these subjects in more detail later. I would like to think we

have all learned lessons from the banks. Remember, they collapsed

under the UK. No previous Labour government gave Fred Goodwin a

knighthood which he has had taken away from him. We will not be

taking any lessons from the Conservatives about banking. Norway

is a richer country than the United Kingdom, it has one of the lowest

rates of unemployment across the whole of Europe. It is an example

of a successful country. A little while ago, we heard in the NHS as

the reason to stay in the UK. It is being broken up and privatised in

England. It is only because we have Paris over the NHS in Scotland that

we are able to keep up. I would like to go back to the First Lady's

question. Not only do we share of the advantages, but we also share

risks. When you are looking at the world economy at the moment, the

European economy, you do not just look at the risks that we share and

the stability we share in a military sense, you also look at it

economically. You say yes, what happened to the banks was terrible

and it was only because we had the might of a larger nation that we

were able to absorb that and ensure that people did not lose their

deposits. In Iceland, they have had democratic reform in the banking

system. There has no -- be no movement towards banking reform

here. There is huge reform going on in the banking sector right now.

Not one megabyte! We are making sure this sort of thing does not

happen again right across Europe. We are looking at liquidity within

banks. To say that nothing has happened is nonsense. Let's hear

from this gentleman. Is it not the point that people across Scotland

are asking the SNP, whose party has been in existence for 80 years,

they still do not have substantial answers to questions on the economy,

defence and welfare and time after time, the SNP have no answers? They

are asking us to say yes to a proposition with no detail

whatsoever. Is that not a bit cheeky? This gentleman. I would

like to come back to beat remarks about shared prosperity. I come

from an Unnefer ment blackspot. We do not seek sure prosperity. We

would do better in an independent Scotland, to be honest. This

gentleman. At the start, Nicola Sturgeon said it was under the UK

Government that the Bank of Scotland and various other banks

went through troubles but then again, we have also got Greece and

spraint and throughout Europe, countries and banks are failing. Is

that the UK's fault as well? It is a global economy and would Scotland

not be better off as part of the UK to get through that and have more

security in troubled times? Thank you. This will be a recurring theme.

Let's go on to question two. issue the Scottish people want to

know about is whether in 10 years' time, Scotland will be financially

better off if they leave the union. Please can we have straight answers.

Will Scotland be financially better off? It would be a mistake to vote

yes or no on the basis of whether you think individually, you might

be a bit better off or worse off. The question is not just about

whether we get richer. We have had, for decades, when we had economic

growth and when we had recession, we have had growing inequality, we

have had profound damage to the environment, we have had failure on

social justice and other things that give people quality of life.

That is at a time when GDP was going up or down. To meet -- to me,

and this is within the Green movement as well, the opportunity

to redefine by what we mean by economic success is not just about

whether we are richer or poorer, but whether we can create a more

cohesive society in which we look after each other and our

environment better, and there are so many examples of policy areas

where the Scottish Parliament simply is bound at the moment,

cannot act to achieve a more equal society, cannot act to achieve some

of the business regulation that is necessary to stop people and the

environment being exploited. I think it would be a mistake to vote

on this question just in terms of prosperity, it goes deeper than

The question comes in two parts. There is a question about whether

individuals would be richer or not. That is to do with opportunities,

jobs for young people coming out of schools. I notice when the pro

independence launch was on Friday, there was not a single businessman

I saw anywhere near the stage. I thought it was an interesting

comment on how the... RBS did such a good job as well.

I'm looking at that. Also it's about countries being able to pay

their bills and looking after the least advantaged in our society.

You are looking for facts and figures. Over the last ten years,

the wealthier spend in Scotland has been bigger every single year than

the entire tax from all North Sea oil revenues. Even Alex Salmond

says he does not want all oil revenues. For 2010, that number was

three times the welfare spend in Scotland was three times the entire

North Sea oil tax take. What people have to bear in mind when they look

forward is not just figures on debt and deficit, also about things paid

for across the whole of the UK that Scotland will be paying for by

itself, things like welfare. Things like defence spend, things like

subsidies to wind farms. So there is a lot of facts and figures we

have to drill down on. Facts and figures we're not get from the pro

separatist campaign. At this point, it might be useful if we check with

the entire panel - can anybody actually say at this stage, hand on

heart, if we will be better off or not, given nobody can predict the

coming cycle? The success of any country anywhere in the world is

how good its Government is and how good the decisions are. I believe

with every fibre of my being that an independent Scotland has the

potential to be financially better off as an independent country than

we are right now. Let's talk facts and figures. The Government

expenditure in revenue... Not published by politicians, but by

civil servants, shows right now if Scotland was independent would be

�500 for every person in Scotland better off than right now. There

are some facts and figures. Ruth talks about welfare spending and

things like that. What she forgets to tell you is each and every one

of you who pays for taxes currently pays for these things. We more than

pay our way in the United Kingdom. For any politician, or for anybody

else to argue in any way that Scotland is supbsised and could not

stand on -- subsidised and could not stand on our own two feet is

not being honest with you. cannot say Scotland is a net

contributor, because we are running a debt at the moment, but actually

Scotland contributes more for its per capita share. Of course

Scotland can be a success as a country.

The interesting point is Nicola, when Nicola answered the question,

she gave the example of Norway. Alex Salmond was quoted saying he

would give an arm and a leg to have the economic problems of Ireland.

The reality is while I disagree with Patrick when he says he

supports independence, at least he says what he believes. That's not

what we see from Nicola or the SNP. It is not credible to say we want

true independence, but at the same time we will give our... Let me

finish my point. To say we will make our biggest business partner,

our biggest competitor. We will set our interest rates and, set our

spending limbs - that's not credible economic policy. That is

what you see in every single poll that is done. The vast majority of

people say they believe we are better off as part of the UK and

want to remain such. I am from Aberdeen actually. My point,

everybody likes freedom of speech - this is good, everybody likes it.

We can at this moment put the position in the world. If it is

actually to become an independent country, become second in position

- what will be the position of the Scotland at that time?

OK, thank you. This gentleman in the middle of the room here. Yes,

you, Sir. Thank you. I think hafr Patrick Harvie is

right when he says there are bigger issues than the economic ones.

Surely that being the case the devolution max option gives us

benefits with few of the risks. I ask for a show of hands here. How

many people here think devow Max should be an option on the

referendum ballot. That is interesting. You are divided on

that. I would like to ask Ms Sturgeon, in particular, your party

and Mr Salmond was a while talking about the Bank of England having -

contributing to our interest rates and things. How can we be an

independent country if they are, you know, involved in our economic

policy? How does that make us an independent country? Let's pick up

that question also with black blbg black. This is something you were -

- with Nicholas Black. This is something you were interested in.

Would an independent Scotland be in the euro or stick with sterling and

would it make it truly independent? The issue about what currency we

use and how much independence we can have if monetary policy is tied

in another country? We want to stay in sterling. We think there would

be advantages to the UK, because our exports, our oil and gas, our

whisky exports, our range of other exports make a massive contribution

to the UK balance of payments. There are advantages in both ways.

The real levers we need with independence to get our economy

growing, to create wealth are fiscal levers. We don't have any

meaningful ones at the moment. That is what we teed to be independent

and get the economy -- need to be independent and get the economy

moving. Tony Blair used to argue to go into the euro. You are not

saying that now, are you? You said we should join the euro. Now you

are saying... Tony Blair wanted to join the euro.

You have noticed, the only test you have is what can we say to try and

persuade people that actually everything will be fine. There

seems to be wufpb rule for Labour and another for everybody else here.

The important point about the euro is - look I will not make a point

about Greece and Ireland. You cannot have a monetary union

without a fiscal and political union. You can't.

And what the SNP are trying to say is we can stay part of sterling,

let England set our interest rates. Probably a Tory Government to set

our spending and borrowing limits. It is not a credible policy. The

reason they no longer want to join the euro is because they have

realised it is immensely unpopular and they realise people will run

one million miles away from it. Answer that about what controls you

can have. In terms of going into the euro, how long can you wait to

go into the euro if you stay within the EU? We said clearly for the

foreseeable future we would not advocate entry to the euro. I think

Anas is wrong. The key lesson is you cannot have a successful

monetary union when you have wildly di ger vapbt economies like the

richest parts of Germany and the poorest piece of Greece. That is

not true across the UK, where productivity levels are very

similar. I think it has been described as... You can have a

successful monetary union, it is called the United Kingdom.

There would be a... Should we take it for granted that the Bank of

England will be the lender for us for last resort? We shouldn't. As

somebody who has never changed their mind on the euro, we need to

go back to the fundamental question... Is that a good thing,

if circumstances change? Let's look at the circumstances right now. The

fundamental question the SNP have not answered when it comes to

Europe is they do not accept or admit that a separate Scottish

state would have to apply to join the EU. One of the rules is you

have to adopt the euro. That is the law. So, it may not be within the

choice of an independent Scotland. Now, so sure is Nicola of her

position and we checked on this, that she has never even checked

with Europe what the law would be. We wrote to the President of the

European Commission to ask if the SNP had ever checked what the

status of an independent Scotland would be. I have the letter which I

got back from his office here, which I will be happy to let Nicola

see, which states that not only has the President been asked by the SNP

in Government or opposition, but no other commissioner has either. The

assertions are based on nothing more than wishful thinking. That is

not enough to make a decision that is irreversible.

APPLAUSE I should say that should have been

submitted in evidence before happened, so we can check. This is

from the President of the commission.

Former judges, firstly about the fact that an independent Scotland

would automatically be in the European Union and we would not be

compelled to be in the Europe. SPEAK AT ONCE

Thank you, thank you. We go to the audience. I just find

that I really enjoy the news and I read an awful lot of news and

current affairs and follow the SNP and followed all the parties in

front of me. If there was an obvious financial advantage of

being independent, I would know that. I would know that now. I'm...

I can't see it. Nobody's going to put money on a horse that they

don't think will win. Nobody will buy a lottery ticket if they don't

think they will win. Yes, the money can fund the system. Can somebody

in the SNP tell me what the financial advantage is to the

country of independence? OK, this gentleman here in the blue shirt.

am fed up with the money argument. There is an obsession with money.

APPLAUSE There's no link between money and

happiness, whether we would be �200 better off. I would like to see a

happier and more... No, no, that would not make an initial impact.

When you look at what is happening, it is not just about material

comfort, it is about whether people can make decisions. Scottish brand

is one of the strongest in the world. I love being Scottish.

great you are interacting. The gentleman behind you here.

Sorry, we keep missing you. The gentleman with the beard. I am

horrified to see that nobody on the panel was going to say that over

ten years they expected Scotland to become better off. Now Patrick

Harvie thinks it is likely we'll be poorer. Now the world economy,

outside the EU at least, is growing at 6% every year. That means that

10%, that is over ten years. We would have doubled the size of the

world economy. Yet none of these people would expect Scotland, an

independent Scotland would be in any way better off. I don't agree

with the gentleman in the front that it is financial... I do want

to live in a better off world. the back here. In the middle at the

back. Yes, thank you. For the Europe and the euro issue,

shouldn't we get clear-cut answers. Will we be in the euro if we are

independent or not? Why hasn't anyone asked for a real yes or no

answer? Nicola Sturgeon, would an independent Scotland be in Europe

and use the euro in the foreseeable future? We would be in Europe, yes.

For the foreseeable future we would not use the euro.

We don't know the answer to that question. The legal advise has not

been sought by the Scottish Government.

This is the most important point, the legal opinion is legal opinion

pre-the Lisbon Treaty. We are not in the European exchange rate

mechanism. I am finding this part of the

debate frustrating, not just because I can barely hear when

people are talking over each other, but also because we are talking

about whether we would join the euro, and it has never been my

party policy, whether we would have to, whether we would be in the EU.

We do not even know what is going to the future of the European Union.

We do not know where the EU or euro will be by 2014, never mind 2016

when a free vote yes, Scotland would be independent. -- if we vote

yes. We need realism about the uncertainties. I agree with Anas

Sarwar that there are problems with the idea of that currency union

without a political union. Even though Scotland and the rest of the

UK are closer together in terms of their economy at the moment, in

reality, they would diverge if we were independent. If the SNP want

to make a case that you should stay in Stirling and that Stirling

should be a multi- state currency zone, we need to attach a timescale

that would move us away from that. We should be willing to talk about

whether Scotland, as an independent country, can have an independent

currency as well. Are we confident that Scotland actually could stay

in Stirling? What is in it for Westminster and the rest of the UK?

That would be a question for the UK Government and it would require the

UK Government to consent, I accept that. Scotland's oil and gas

exports create half of the UK's balance of deficit. No government

in its right mind would turn as a way. There are advantages for the

rest of the UK. How is it credible to have a foreign country sector

interest rates? How it is that independence? The interest rates

are set by the Bank of England. There is no Scottish representation

on the Monetary Policy Committee, which would change if Scotland was

independent and we would get the fiscal levers that we so badly need.

The policy of the Bank of England is set by the Treasury. If Anas

Sarwar thinks... There is no point in all of us talking over each

other all of the time. I appreciate by you feel strongly but just to

clarify, Anas Sarwar, that is a point that you're leverage is your

balance of payments and who would turn down in a Stirling's own the

oil revenues and the with the Revenue's? -- Stirling's own.

of our business is with England. If we become a separate country, baby,

our biggest business competitor and they are setting our interest rates

and borrowing limits. We are part of the UK, it would be a foreign

country setting the interest rates if we were not. None of the panel

can decide if we going to Europe or not. With regards to the Stirling,

it is more important to look at the relationship we would have with the

UK if we abandon them and look at that and the effect it would have

on our financial situation. Thank you. I want to go back to the

earlier. Mac about looking after the poorest in society. -- the

earlier point. Currently, people with disabilities are losing their

benefits, there are communities around Scotland that have had

massive social problems for decades, how is the UK looking after its

poorest? At the back? You are on national television and you are

lying. The Bank of England, under the Bank of England Act 1998, no

political party has representation on the council and you are saying

that Scotland would have a representative on the Monetary

Policy Committee. At best, there is conflicting opinion about the EU

and whether Scotland would be in or are out of it. You are saying 100%

Scotland would be in it. That is not the case. It is a disgrace.

Just to be accurate about this, I did not suggest party political

representation in the Monetary Policy Committee. The Chancellor of

the Exchequer appoints four members to the committee. I am suggesting a

Scottish finance secretary could represent us. -- could appoint

someone to represent us. Can I ask Nick Allott a question. If you as a

nationalist have launched your campaign, why would you want to

leave I'd union whose long-term tendency is to devolve and localise

power in Scotland to join one which wants to centralise power in the

European Union, why would you want that as a nationalist? I am not a

central list. On the assumption that we would have to join the euro

to join the EU, does that change your stance? It is not the chance.

-- my case. You obviously have not done your homework to find out that

in order to be in the euro, you have to be in the European

exchange-rate mechanism for two years. The legal opinion on this is

absolutely clear. No it is not. think we have established that

there is conflicting legal opinion on Mace and conflicting opinions.

Yes? I think it is easy for pro independence people to say, what

have the British government done to help inequality? Glasgow and

Scotland has a massive problem with inequality. How are we going to

have more social justice? How would you get to the root causes?

Successive governments have failed to do this. Just because we are

independent, what makes you think we are going to come up with a

massive solution? We are hearing just the Yes side throwing facts at

us, saying it will be better. We need actual hard facts and hard

points. They are just building on the austere situation of the UK at

the moment, playing on the back of that. We want to hear opera Det --

projections and what is going to happen to us in the future. A quick

mention, if you would like to find out more on these and other issues,

visit our section on the BBC News website. The next question please.

How would any future Scottish Government replace defence jobs

which will be lost after independence? I am not looking to

spread of the UK so I am not going to be able to answer that. I do not

know how we could possibly replace those jobs. The MoD has 18,000

uniform and nonuniform personnel across Scotland across 30 local

authorities. Thousands of people are involved in local defence

contraction. We have already heard about getting rid of submarines at

Faslane. Frankly, I am proud of our armed forces and they do tremendous

work because they are integrated across the UK. The defence plans

that were outlined by the SNP in January were risible because they

did not take into account that there would not be anything like a

logistics Corps, an officer training school, engineering input,

an RAF Regiment, a Royal Naval Reserve, they would not have any

special forces. They need to go back to the drawing board and come

back if they are serious about the first rule of government,

protecting the nation that user, they have to come back with

something which is a credible plan for defence of an independent

Scotland. What Rhys Davies and forgets to tell you is that

Scotland has been shedding defence jobs for the last few years under

both the previous government and his conservative government. 10,000

defence jobs, air bases cut, and we contribute more to UK defence than

is spent in Scotland. We would inherit the defence footprint that

was in Scotland at the time of independence and ensure that we had

defence forces to protect Scotland's interests. If you look

at countries like Norway, Scotland is going to have one Airbase,

Norway has seven. Anybody that says that Scotland cannot support the

kind of defence forces that we need is not looking at similar countries

elsewhere in Europe. One thing we would not have, and I make no bones

about it, we would not have weapons of mass destruction on the River

Clyde because we do not need them. When would they go, Nicola

Sturgeon? That would be a matter for negotiation in the independence

of negotiations. We would want to see Trident leaving the River Clyde

as soon as possible. It is a weapons system that we cannot

afford and do not need. I do not think the majority of people want

to see them remain any longer than they have to. Gentleman to be left?

Have you had a word with BAE Systems? Are you guaranteeing that

they will continue to build English -- the English may be? The MoD have

given a contract in Korea. We had some of the best shipyard workers

in the world and I used to represent the Govan shipyard, and

they could compete across the world. Just when you recall, you are

treated to say that if we did not have the aircraft carrier contract

from the MoD it would mean the end of shipbuilding in Scotland. The UK

only commissions warships from UK companies. If we are no longer part

of the United Kingdom, why would it commission them? The reason there

was a vessel in Korea is because there was no UK contract and it was

not a warship. The other important point about Trident... Are you

suggesting that if Scotland will not compete successfully under

independence? One thing that demonstrates the positive skills of

the UK is the shipbuilding industry, particularly in Scotland. The UK

has never commissioned a warship quite wither the UK. Nicholas said

herself on Twitter that the obliteration of the shipbuilding

industry in Scotland, and the other. That is important, I do not want to

get the nuclear weapons just out of the Clyde, just move it down the

motorway, we want to obliterate nuclear weapons not just from

Scotland but from right across this UK -- the UK and around the world.

You have a specific question about nuclear? On the subject of Trident,

when the day comes, or if the day comes when Scotland is independent,

who picks up the tab for the removal of these weapons from

Scottish Water as? Nicola Sturgeon? I think Scotland is -- has more

than shed the burden of Trident and I think people in Scotland want to

see the day when we no longer have tried nuclear missiles on the River

Clyde. The only way to ensure that happens is to vote Yes in the

independence referendum. Just to clarify that point Mike -- that

point, actually you will get an independent Scotland, and what

happens thereafter will be that you get a green majority government?

You may get eight Labour a majority government. To say vote Yes to get

rid of Trident may not actually be the case. People then have the

right to vote for parties to form a government to get rid of Trident.

We do not have that option without independence. We have demonstrated

that the people of Scotland are opposed to Trident. There is very

little chance that you will have a pro Trident government. We have got

the opportunity to go further and have a constitutional prohibition

on weapons of mass destruction. We would be the central -- second

country in the world to have a constitutional bar on the use of

weapons of mass destruction. We could go further. Be Green Party to

not just want to reproduce a small section of the UK defence

infrastructure policy or overseas use of it in Scotland. I don't want

weapons of mass destruction, not just because they are wrong, but

because they are necessary. I don't want the same possession on

aircraft carriers that Nicola had, because those machines are Sibly

about the aggressive projection of power around the world. I would

like to redefine what security and defence mean in the 21st century.

The threats to human well-being in the 21st century are not about

Borders, especially not the border of Scotland with England, it is

about poverty, water, energy, climate change, these are the real

threats to human well-being and security in the 21st century and

they will need a fundamentally different set of defensive answers

rather than just reproducing UK One thing which has served Scotland

and the UK well through the years, through defence, has been standing

shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies and being part of NATO has

been, NATO is the strongest defence alliance around the world. There

are stand alongside allys in Iraq. Come along. We had no choose.

Having been to Kosovo and seen some of the work our troops did there,

preventing ethnic cleansing, I am proud of the work NATO did.

Frankly I am proud of what we did in the Balkans right on our toor

step. I would like to ask Nicola, has the SNP decided its position on

NATO? We don't know. The current policy is we would not be in NATO.

We would be in parter inship for peace. Like we den, not in NATO,

but in partnership for peace. -- Sweden. Not in NATO, but in

partnership for peace. We don't know what the security

review will do to Armed Forces in Scotland. We will debate it when we

get the information of the cuts your Government is making.

It's not going to work if you start interviewing each other off camera

there. Can someone tell me, who is

Scotland going to nuke with this weapon?

The gentleman here. The fact is it was said many years ago now you

cannot uninvent nuclear weapons. The reality is if we take a moral

stance that we're not going to have them, we have to hope that some of

the luen tick, extremist people around will play -- lunatic,

extremists will not play around. We need to be adequately defended.

gentleman in the red shirt. I am a member of the SNP, as Nicola knows.

I am pro NATO, and the American submarine fleet remains at fas lain.

The SNP needs the debate and we need to move towards being in NATO.

That is the shield of western defence. We really need to be in it.

The lady here in the green top. Yes, this one. Thank you. I would like

to ask Mr Sarwar. He said he himself would like to obliterate

nuclear weapons, not just from Scotland but from England as well.

It is my understanding that is another personal view, but because

it is not the view of the Labour Party across the UK, the Scottish

Labour Party are unable to take forward their views. That shows you

are not able to as a Scottish party to put forward what you consider to

be the programme for this country that you want because you are

obstructed by the UK. It's not true. The last Labour

Government was the most active in terms of nuclear disarmament. In

terms of reducing the number of war heads. As long as we feel good

about ourselves, let's move them a couple of hundred miles down the M4

and everything will be fine. Those who don't believe in weapons of

mass destruction want them away from not just Scotland, but the

rest of the UK and the rest of the world too. I don't think the SNP's

position is credible at all. would like to see nuclear weapons

removed from the world completely. I would like to see the UK

Government not just supporting the current Trident system, but

planning to replace the Trident missile system. So long as we have

a Government which supports Trident it is reasonable for people in

Scotland to say we don't want it in the River Clyde, we don't want it

in Scotland. Can you pick up on the point about the fact we need a

nuclear deterrent for our own security? I don't believe in

nuclear deterrents. Whom does it deter? And from what? The response

to Anas and the gentleman at the back of the room, this is a debate

about unilateral disarmament, verses multi-lateral disarmament. I

understand high some people have moved from that unilateralist to a

multi-lateralist position. What the UK Government is doing is

unilateral rearmament, the decision to replace with a new weapons of

mass destruction. If we in Scotland, whether through voting yes or

through political pressure and I think it can be done by voting yes

to independence, to say this cannot exist in Scottish waters, we will

help tip the balance within the UK defence argument. There are many

who don't think this is a legitimate and a sensible and

rational use of money. Many would say this should not be pursued,

even at UK level. We can help to tip the balance. There are precious

other places it could be moved to in England or in Wales. If Scotland

said no and got rid of Trident from Scottish waters, we would help to

tip the balance in the UK and they would not end up replacing them. It

would be a profoundly positive step forward. So many of the arguments

we have heard tonight just scream to me that we should be voting for

independence because whether we're going to be in sterling or a member

of the EU, or retain the monarchy or get rid of nuclear weapons. All

these decisions can be made by us as a sovereign, independent nation.

APPLAUSE But only once we're independent. We

seem to be getting away from the discussion tonight. Many of these

debates and arguments are surely going to be held at the first

Scottish elections after independence, when if the Labour

Party want to retain Trident, let them put it in their manifesto for

an independent Scotland and see what the people of Scotland say.

Thank you for that. Thank you all. Thanks for that. Now, let's go on

to our next question, please. It's from Sandra Webster. Sandra?

Scotland be independent if the monarchy is retained?

Patrick? Well, yes. I think there are other countries which share the

British monarchy, which I couldn't say are not independent because of

that. I don't think that we should retain the hereditary principal in

a modern country. I think that is a point of principal. I would be fair

more comfortable if we had an elected head of state rather than

retaining the monarchy. There's a debate that's due next week in the

Scottish Parliament about the jubilee. We're all expected to go

along and say nice things and clap and all agree that isn't the

monarchy wonderful. I, in my own life, I don't know anyone who takes

it seriously. There's a latent republicanism that doesn't call

itself republicanism, maybe thinks the monarchy is a wee bit silly and

we could do better. We should be willing to have that debate. It

seems bizarre to debate creating a new independent country without

having a broad, open debate about how to choose the head of state. I

hope we have that. It is an issue the SNP will have to come to when

they publish their White Paper. I think there'll have to be space

about a debate about how you achieve a written constitution. How

do you have a process, in Scotland, that draws together public views

and creates a written constitution we can adopt democratically. It may

be that most people would want to keep the monarchy, I would vote

against that. We need to at least have the debate. APPLAUSE

We may share the same city, but we have vastly different social

circles. I am sure you do! Actually, I mean I look at the

service that the queen has given down the last few decades. I am

proud she's been my head of state. I think she's done a remarkable job.

I think when you look at some of the political leaders, a want to be

President Blair or President Salmond, I like the idea you have a

non-political head that functions in that civic space in the UK.

direction answer of course you can be independent with the queen as

head of state. There are countries in that position. The union of the

Crown predates the date of the political union between the UK and

Scotland. I support retaining the queen as head of state, because in

many ways it symbolises the strong social union that would continue to

exist, notwithstanding Scotland winning political and economic

independence. I think that is a good thing. Sandra, in asking the

question, what do you think is the answer? I am a feminist republican.

I believe the people of Scotland should decide who they have as head

of state. I believe a monarchy is invalidated and the people should

decide. Anas Sarwar? I support the monarchy. The number of U-turns

we'll have leading up to that referendum in 2014 if we ever have

it and the SNP show the bottle and call it. We can keep the pound, the

monarchy, all the lovely things you like about the UK. See the things -

- to say the bad things will change, that is not credible. The SNP need

to tell us what independence means. It goes back to social justice.

That is the real agenda. My priority is to make Mr Cameron

the next unemployment statistic. We want a kind of Scotland where we

have a more prosperous country. It is credible to say one of the first

policies we'll have so to reduce corporation tax for the biggest

businesses and hammer public services across the country. That

is a failed... Do you support the monarchy? I would support the

principal of monarchy. In an independent Scotland? I wonder

which will come between now and 2014. This gentleman here. I was

born and raised in a country where you elect the head of state. I can

tell you I don't want to go down this road here. I really don't.

Possible the German model. I cannot see the American or the South

American model or the model in a lot of countries where there's a

competitive party election for head of state, with the waste and the

money that is involved - I just don't want it here.

This gentleman here? We have Elizabeth the second. I am ex-army,

so God bless her. We have Elizabeth II. Charles wants to be George VII.

When we become independent, not if, if we don't want Charles VII. I opt

we go for princess Ann. Now the last question, from Francesca Pieri.

Who would you like to see representing Scotland at the

Eurovision Song Contest? It gets tougher as we go along. Can I jump

in. I don't know if anyone remembers a TV programme called the

High Life. There was a great song called Pif-Paf-Pof. That was a

generous entry to Eurovision. It was only fiction, but it is only a

hair away from fact. I am tempted to go to say Sweden's success shows

what a small independent country can achieve. I think, I am not sure

they would agree, but I think it would be great to see the

Proclaimers give Jedward a run for their money.

As someone proud to be Scottish but proud to be part of the United

Kingdom, one of the pluses, and maybe one of the only is we have

the Hump representing us. I think the Proclaimers are a good

shout. There are lots of artists we could promote. I think we will be

proud to be part of the UK come the referendum. I could not bring

myself to vote this year either. This year?

LAUGHTER I think, you know, one maybe half

serious point is about the way the political voting happens in

Eurovision. Countries vote for each other year after year. If we vote

"yes" and establish a new friendly, respectful, respectful relationship

with our friends down south, you could see England and Scotland

giving 12 points to each other and we'll all be happy! On that note

we'll have to leave it. We're out of time. Thanks to everybody here

in the studio for taking part and of course thanks to you very much