The Big Debate: Choosing Scotland's Future

Pro-independence or pro-union, one referendum, one decision, don't

forget it is your choice and it's Good evening. Welcome to Motherwell

civic centre. This is the fourth debate in a series of discussions

in the run-up to the vote on independence in 2014. Holyrood and

Westminster agreed. The Edinburgh agreement has shifted the debate

past the process and now attention turns to policy. But what are the

parties offering? What are the choices and do you share their

vision? The audience this evening is mainly made up of 16 and 17-

year-olds. They represent the newly enfranchised voters. They will be

putting their questions directly to our panel. They are leader of the

Scottish Liberal Democrats Willie Rennie. From Westminster Anas

Sarwar. Minister for Youth poiment in the Scottish government Angela

Constance. Patrick Harvie joins us from the Scottish Greens and author

and Professor of history at Edinburgh University, Tom Devine.

It's the 5th November. Will there be fireworks tonight. Straight to

the first question. Siobhan your question please. In an independence

Scotland will there be new laws on immigration? Thank you for that.

Angela Constance, will there be new laws on independence? In an

independence Scotland for the very first time, Scotland would be

empowered to make its own decisions about matters such as immigration,

and for the first time we would have the opportunity to set

immigration law and policy that meets the needs of our society, our

demography and our economic needs. Scotland, of course, has always

been a welcoming nation. I myself am from Italian origins. My Italian

grandfather was put on a boat in Italy, told he was going to America

and ended up in Blackburn in west Lothian, so I would hope that

Scotland will remain a welcoming place. But most importantly, for

the first time, the people of Scotland the best place to make

decisions, impacting Scotland, will be able to make important decisions

about how we feel, immigration policy should be implement indeed

this country. The Scottish government has welcomed recent

rises in the Scottish population, much of it fuelled by immigration.

Can you imagine a situation where they might be concerns on that

situation? Like other members of this panel, I don't have a crystal

ball, I would never pretend to have a crystal ball. In the past we have

been concerned in Scotland about depopulation. I represent a

constituency in west Lothian that is very diverse. We have a large

number of migrant workers from Eastern Europe, they are very

settled in west Lothian, make a positive contribution to social

life there and also to our local economy. The important thing is, we

will be able to respond to the needs of the time, because we will

have the ability for the very first time to make decisions on

immigration. Obviously, in the context of the European Union, and

of course Scots have always travelled the world, and will

continue to to to do so, and we will continue to be members of the

EU and benefit from arrangements such as free travel. Will an

independent Scotland have new laws on immigration? Siobhan has a very

good question. It is one of the conflicts will be created. Scotland

will be able to have its own immigration policy, but what we

have now is a common travel area within the UK. If we were to be a

new member of the EU, we might have to have some restrictions on that,

because the agreement might have to apply to Scotland, so actually

England might actually decide it wants to have a border posts of all

things at the border between Scotland and England. That might be

coun of the consequences of Scotland deciding to have a

different immigration policy from the rest of the UK. We don't

necessarily have to be in the agreement if we sign up to the EU

That is one of the big debates. There is a huge difference of

opinions on that. There is no absolute grarn tee. It is important

to remember in an independent Scotland, it is Scotland will be in

Europe as an equal partner, along with our other friends and allies

and of course, our foremost friend and ally is going to be England and

the rest of the UK. Just because we are independent doesn't mean that

we are going to stop co-operating with our friends and allies. We are

just going to continue to co- operate but as equal partners.

Willie Rennie is right. If we sign up for the Shenan agreement we are

going to need a border control? I think that is one of the myths

that we are going to have passport controls or border controls in

Scotland. We don't currently have these things just now and we are

not going to have them in an independent Scotland. Your recent

conference supported open borders as far as possible with other

European countries. We did also debate, for example, whether

joining the Shengan agreement would be practical. Nobody would want

border controls. If there was a mandate for independents from the

Scottish people both governments would, it would be in their

interest to work towards a situation where where there was no

need for that. There is a huge opportunity alongside immigration

for a humane asylum policy. The UK government's asylum regime under

the current government and predecessor government has been

brutal, uncaring and lacking in compassion and I think we would

have the opportunity in Scotland to have a genuinely compassionate

asylum system that that meets the needs of people who flee

persecution and war around the world. That is a huge opportunity

we are lacking at the moment that we could put into practice with

independence. Let me go back to Siobhan who asked the question. Do

you think we would need curbs in an independent Scotland. It depends on

whether we are going to stop people coming into the coun country or let

everybody into the country. There needs to be give and take. I know

you said people like immigrating from Scotland, the decreasing

population was a concern, will there be new laws on that as well?

Will you stop people from, tradesmen and women going out of

Scotland? More points from the audience. Angela Constance, surely

it is more important we make good policy decisions rather than

bothering about who is making them. It is surely more important we

actually pick good decisions? get a view from this young man

I am wondering if members of the SNP and Green Party, do you feel

that there is enough immigration in Scotland? And one more. You were

talking about guarantees. The truth is now Scotland can't make any

guarantees because we have a Tory government which we never elected.

And currently they are posing several negative immigration

policies. APPLAUSE

Immigration is part of the fabric which makes up our society. I am

part polish, lathe wainian and Irish and Russian and here I am. I

wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Scotland's historical successful

immigration legacy. So I think we need to embrace immigration because

Watt it, we would be worse off than we are now. Do you agree that

actually not much needs to change in an ined pebt Scotland on

immigration? What we need is an honest debate. It is a pleasure to

be here debating the future of Scotland. This will be the biggest

decision you will make in your lifetime. We need a debate that is

transparent and honest about the big issues. I don't think we have

that so far. Because what we need is, yes, our politicians will

divide over the next two years but we don't want to divide our country

in the process. Only if we have all the facts put in front of the

Scottish people so, they can make a rational judgment and be sure...

Which facts are we lacking. As we come together after the result and

make a a fairer and prosperous Scotland. You can't say we have a

different immigration system or policy to England and not assume

that they wouldn't want to have some kind of border control. It

would be in the gift of England to decide whether they thought we need

add different immigration policy in Scotland. On the point about the

European Union. Angela is right to say we would hope to be members of

the EU, but it is more important than just to say whether we would

be automatic members or not. It is about what the terms of that

membership would be. Professor aifry who the SNP have quoted this

week himself says Scotland in his opinion would be an automatic

member, but the euro and the Shengana agreement which involves

free free movement across the UK would be up for negotiation. That

would have a serious impact on movement across the UK and across

Europe and how we live our lives. APPLAUSE

Do we need to be concerned if Scotland has a different

immigration policy. I can't believe some of the views coming from the

politicians on this issue of immigration. The last point from

the audience, the key point from that young man who is obviously a

typical Scot, because we are all mongrels in this society, Angela

said tI come from two generations of non-Scottish back ground, it is

very interesting this point about frontier posts and people being

refusedentry into England. At the census of 2001 the biggest

immigrant group in this country were English, aquarter of a million

of them. Are we going to put up posts for them as well. It is a

ludicrous suggestion, because this is one of the key areas, and I am

not not suggesting an argument for or against ined pence. This is one

of the key areas where is there is a big difference between

Westminster and Edinburgh. Because ever since the fresh talent

initiative of a few years ago, this country has recognised that

actually it needs more immigrants, particularly those of talent and

skill and if you look at the debate down in London, it's beginning to

sound almost semi-racist in its tone. We don't have that up here.

If the SNP are arguing for independence, which they are, this

is possibly not their central argument, but potentially one of

their key arguments. That this is an area of deep divide between the

two countries, especially as the young man also said when one of

those countries is being ruled by a rightish wing government, and

including for the purposes of immigration Scotland as well, a

rightish wing government which is in almost kind of ethical turmoil

about the issue of immigration. This is a particular Scottish issue,

and you guys out there should not forget it. It is a very telling

aspect of the division of the dividing lines which are beginning

to open up, politically and to some extent socially between the two

countries. Let me take more views from the audience.

With an independent Scotland not have to worry about having stricter

border control due to English because of the welfare state being

dismantled in gland, if Scotland had its own separate welfare state

with different Perks and benefits for people who needed them.

Surely immigration is better coordinated across the whole of the

UK and having a separate Scottish immigration policy will create more

complications and problems than solutions. On the issue raised

there about the immigration policy from the coalition government at

Westminster, which your party is a part, are you uneasy in any way

about the immigration policy being pursued there? These are

challenging issue but we have managed to mitigate some of the

issues. There is no longer child attention in the UK as a result of

the of the measures we took. Immigration is a challenge, it is a

big issue and the fresh talent initiative to try and bring new

people into Scotland of talent was a welcome step. Going back to the

gentleman here who said he is from Russian background, all over the

world. That wasn't a Scottish government that your ancestors were

brought here under. It was a UK government that allowed that access.

It is the UK heritage that has led all of us to be here from all these

variety of different backgrounds. That is the heritage we should look

for in terms of predicting the next 300 years.

APPLAUSE Should we be concerned that people

from elsewhere in the UK might want to come here because of a more

generous benefits system, English students would be regarded as

European for the purposes of tuition fees and would be able to

to study in Scotland for free? People rushing over the border

trying to make the most of the benefits. The welfare state would

be based on the basis of citizenship. But the issue of

coordination is interesting. The guy there said that these things

are better coordinated across the whole of the UK. I think it is

precisely the opposite. I think given Scotland has different needs

and different circumstances than the much for crowded south east of

England, it would be quite wrong to think that one single immigration

policy is right for all parts of the these islands. For example the

universities and and colleges which need to attract overseas students

and that is something which enriches our culture and our

education system, are basically having their hands tied behind

their back by having to work through an immigration system which

is set in London for priorities that understand London and south-

east's needs, not Scotland's. The fresh talent zem is a perfect

example where you have a UK government and Scottish government

working together. In a On the point about the Tories immigration

policies and also on the welfare state, I spend every day in

Westminster fighting with the Tories and campaigning every day to

ensure we get David Cameron out of Number Ten and Ed Milliband in as

Prime Minister. If that doesn't happen would Scotland be better off

independent? The difference is when John Smith was leader of the Labour

Party when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, whether David Cameron was

Prime Minister or if Nelson was Prime Minister of the UK, the SNP

would still believe in independence. What we are seeing is disagreements

with the UK government, yes we need a change of UK government, but that

is not an argument for independence. We can have the best of both worlds.

Let's go to the middle here. Can I say that the reason the SNP

are fighting for independence is not because of a Tory government or

Labour government in London, it is to do with they want an independent

Scotland to be the whole country. I can wake up in the morning and say

I am Scottish and not British, I don't care about the government in

Westminster making the decisions. Going back to English people taking

the benefits from Scotland, what about those of us who have moved up

from England and we count as Scottish people, would that change

at all? Let's see if we get an answer to that. We are going to

move on to the next question and it is similar. It is from Alice from

Oban. Will tax rise in an independent

Scotland? Thank you for that. Short and to the point. Will taxes

rise in an independent Scotland. Patrick Harvie if you have your way,

they will. I would like some taxes to rise. Some of the wealthiest

people and biggest corporations are getting away with paying very

little tax. There are hoop holes for them to exploit to reduce their

tax burden in a way ordinary people can't. There are resources like

land which it would be really effective if we could have a tax

that applies to land instead of council tax or business rates.

much more would we be paying? I don't think you can give an

answer about independence. That is a question about the policies of

any individual government. For example, if we had an an SNP

government they might want to cut corporation tax. I would be very

much oppose today that. If we had a more left of centre government they

might want to raise taxes from the wealthy and that is something I

would support. We need to have a debate about the opportunities that

independence would give us. Not assume that independence equals one

set of policies for any particular political party. What we are

debating at the moment is the question whether to make these

choices in Scotland. I think the repeated failures of UK government

after UK government after UK government, to close the gap

between rich and poor and to use the taxation system to do that is

one good reason for saying let's do it here in Scotland.

APPLAUSE Tom Devine would you like to see

taxes rise as a way of making a fairer society? Not for me

personally. That is the difficulty. We have got to acknowledge to begin

with that all is not well with Scotland at the moment. It is a

very deeply divided society socially. Some of you may come from

the rural areas of Scotland, but we are some of the grossest pools of

deprivation, unacceptable morally in some parts of our great cities,

particularly Glasgow and the hinterland of the West of Scotland.

One of the arguments for an independent Scotland, like Patrick

I doubt it can be done at UK level, especially by a government with the

current ideology, is that hopefully, but won't necessarily happen

because it hasn't yet happened under devolution, some attention

will be paid to these grave social evils. Some people in Scotland

think we should be moving in a Scandinavian direction. If we are

going to move in that direction where there is more concern with

social justice and support for the disadvantaged in society, there

will have to be an increase in taxation in some areas of our

country. But it's back to this question of variables and the

future and why I don't regard it as my period, because my period is the

past. There's three other issues that have to be taken into

contribution, what is going to happen in terms of what Scottish

oil and gas futures with an independent Scotland. Secondly, is

the actual process, the dynamic that is going on, to provide

different forms of energy going to be important. Above all, how is

this current recession going to pan out by the end of this decade. This

is why it is so difficult to say really that although personally I

think we should be paying more to help others, personally I think

that, I take that view, whether that would be the case politically

will depend on all these other factors. Let's go down to the front

here and get a view. If you are wanting to talk about the increase

of taxes, that is government policy, so that would be to do with your

own political ideas, but if you are looking at the broader future of

Scotland, we have talked about oil and what happens with the resources

that Scotland already has to provide a sustainable future to

itself as an independent country, what prospects are there for

taxation, assuming that we have access to our resources. It is

often said that Scotland would have a greater economic benefit from

being independent, but what are the facts on that? Are we actually

going to be benefited from this? will ask for some facts in a moment.

On the point regarding taxes, I mean it is a point that we can only

decide if we are independent. We can't have this debate and talk

about taxes because the UK Government is the one that decides

at the moment. We have so say over the taxes at the moment and that is

what should be changed before we can talk about what should be taxed.

APPLAUSE I don't see why we should raise taxes. Some of the highest

tax payers provide the most employment in the country. What you

are doing by raising taxes is damaging these people's ability to

employ. If you want to get the country prospering, it is

employment we need to target and not increasing the welfare state.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. It fundamentally depends,

what kind of Scotland do you want. Willie Rennie, resource rich

country, would taxes need to rise? Going back to Alice's point. Taxes

might well have to rise. Just this year, Angela will say that Scotland

raised as a proportion more than it spent, that is true. It's only

happened twice in the last 25 years. In broad terms it can roughly raise

what it spends, but that is with the oil at the current price and

the oil is not going to last forever. Maybe another 40 years,

you may have the volatility of price with oil. What you might have

is huge volatility in the taxes as well in order to mirror that, to

make sure you don't have savage cuts in public spending as a result.

Although Angela will say we can raise, and that is true tor this

year, it's not been the case for the last 25 years, and tax revenue

will plummet over the next 40 years. Let's be clear about the facts.

Scotland more than pays their way. Over the last 30 years we have

contributed �19 billion more than we have received back in

expenditure and that equates to �1,000 per household in Scotland.

�2.7 billion a year. The important thing to acknowledge about taxation

is taxation and the whole basket of taxes that we should be deciding

here in Scotland are economic levers. If you are serious about

getting this country back to work, we need to be making out a whole

range of decisions about taxation in response to the economic climate

of the time. Does that mean taxes might rise in an independent

Scotland. We would have choices. If you think of the �1,000 household

we pay, we could decide to reduce taxation f we so wished, or decide

to invest that resource into public services, or we could be

potentially reducing corporation tax. There is evidence that

reducing corporation tax over the long-term increases jobs. Or we may

want to invest more in capital investment, something that Willie

Rennie's government is refusing to consider, a project of projects.

Every �100 million of expenditure will create 1,400 jobs in this

country. In regards to my own brief with regards to young people, if we

seriously want to get our young people into jobs, we need to be

voting for a parliament that is going to give those young people

the right to work and have a parliament that has economic powers

to grow our economy. APPLAUSE

I think it comes back to the question of what kind of Scotland

would you like to live in. I would prefer to live in a Scotland with

higher higher taxes to help the young and disadvantaged,

implemented by a government you have actually voted for, rather

than the status quo that we have now and a Tory government that we

have now. Scotland is one of the leader nations in education, in

renewable energy. We still have time left with oil, we still have

50 years, why is it that it is common knowledge that the majority

of people believe Scotland is not capable of supporting itself.

Another view here. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about

Scotland's future. You have recession, jobs lost left right and

centre. Why can't we wait for this debate. Why does it have to be in

2014. I understand the propaganda aspects, it is the anniversary of

Bannockburn, the Commonwealth gaiment, but -- games but why can't

we wait for the debate. It seems to me they are trying to manipulate

the young crowd here. APPLAUSE

Let me bring in Anas Sarwar. Is there any benefit in waiting?

Imhappy to have the referendum tomorrow. It is the SNP who want to

wait for another two years. Angela says we raise more than we spend.

She is right if you give that example in percentage terms, we

raise 9.6% of taxes but spend 9.3% here in Scotland. Let's look at the

figures. 9.6% of tax intake is �53 billion. 9.3% of spend is �63

billion, that is a deficit of �10 billion. This quarter we saw

unemployment falling across the UK by 50,000, but rising in Scotland

by 7 7,000. Let's not pretend that only good things are happening

under Alex Salmond here in Scotland. Bad things are happening in

Scotland because of the consequences of decisions of the

SNP. Your party leader says we can't afford many of the benefits

people get at the moment, something Alex Salmond calls the devolution

dividend. Would taxes have to rise in an independent Scotland to pay

for those things. We have to make some genuine changes in Scotland to

take on the challenges. How do we make sure, if you are a young

person with a working class background, you are less likely to

go to college or university than if you live in England or Wales, how

is that fair. I respect Patrick Harvie's decision on that. What the

SNP is saying we want to have Scandinavian public services with a

tax system of Monaco. That is not being honest with the people of

Scotland. The only one policy they have said, the only one tax they

have spoken about is cutting corporation tax to 15% in Scotland.

That is a tax cut for the biggest businesses in the country. That

would mean a slashing of public spending across the country. I

don't think that's fair. The Labour Party are quite right to

say we can't have Scandinavian of public services and American levels

of tax, that is a fair criticism of many of the positions of the SNP

take. What the Labour Party aren't doing is saying which of those they

prefer. I am being perfectly clear. I want, I like the Scandinavian

model, where more taxes go to your local community first of all. The

smaller share goes to the national government. But they do invest in

public services. The Labour Party isn't yet saying which of these it

wants. Do you want the cuts to public services or do you want to

raise the taxation to pay for it. What we are saying is, it is not

right that we cut taxes for millionaires while millions are

left to struggle in the current climate. We also don't think the

SNP policy of cutting corporation tax... I know what you don't think,

what do you think. I want to come back to the point about the vote

being delayed. As the member of the Scottish youth parliament we are

delighted 16 and 17-year-olds are getting the vote. But what will you

do to politically engage these young people so they know what they

are voting for and have an informed decision on the referendum so they

don't just go out and pick that because I like it.

I would like to ask the member of the SNP if we do not raise taxes in

Scotland as an independent Scotland how will you ensure university fees

will not become introduced in an independent Scotland. This is an

issue very important of people of my age across Scotland.

Simply to say to the young lady, it is the SNP that is a party of free

education and we have never ever been in favour either of upfront

tuition fees or back door tuition fees. Our record, unlike the other

parties here is clean. We will move on to another question. Our next

question comes from Erin from Stirling.

I am completely for ined pence but what happens if the referendum

returns a No vote. It goes back to what I said at the

start. Whether there is a yes or no vote, we have to make sure all of

the country come together and work to build a fairer Scotland. Does

anything change if there is a no vote. The two years in the debate,

we are going to make the case of why Scotland should be part of the

UK. Yes we want to celebrate the 300 years of history and shared

prosperity. But I I believe it is our benefit to work in partnership

with England, Wales and Northern Ireland to take on the challenges

of today, whether it be youth unemployment, rebalancing our

economy, taking on the genuine challenges today but also working

internationally, through our influence as a G8 country, our

place in the Security Council. We are a leading member of the

international community. Sounds like the status quo. What I am

saying is we have huge global challenges, climate change and we

are best placed to achieve those things if we work with other

countries and not break our self off from the rest of the world.

With respect, I thought that was a serious of platitudes. I honestly

fear for Scotland after 2014. Certainly all the evidence at the

moment is stacked against a pro- independence vote. That may change

over time, but if you look back to the first referendum and devolution

in 1979, there was deep melancholy across the land for five to ten

years afterwards. It looks as if a third of the Scottish electorate

will vote for independence. If that doesn't occur, how are they going

react. It is vital for the established parties, those who

might win the vote against independence, to have something in

place, something like devolution max or going down that particular

route so the future doesn't become one of orthodoxy and stability as

has just been said. That nothing is going to happen. This is a decisive

moment in the history of the nation. The other parties, the so-called

unionist parties in my view not having delivered the third question,

which is a democratical disgrace. APPLAUSE

Not having delivered the third question they have a moral

responsibility to suggest what might happen in a post-2014 anti-

independence vote. Otherwise, the collective psychology of this

nation is going to suffer. I want to go back to Erin who asked the

question. You said that you support independence. What do you think

will happen if there is a No vote? I think there should be options for

Scotland to become more independent. I still think it is ridiculous we

have nuclear weapons in our country when we are not even allowed to

control them. Whether Scotland becomes

independent or not, surely everyone who is part of Scotland as a

country must see it is unfair although we didn't vote in the

Conservative government we have to go under their laws, should that

change? Let's get a view from that

gentleman. If Scotland does get a no vote will

we get devo max and try and fulfil more beneficial ways to improve our

country, that is what we need to know. Your party has come forward

with some proposals for home rule but they are not going to be put to

the people. Where most people are in Scotland, they want to stay in

the UK, but they want to have more control over the domestic affairs

and that is what we propose with our home rule within a federal UK.

Why did your Scottish secretary Michael Moore negotiate away the

chance to put that point to the people in the referendum. So did

the SNP. It was an agreement between the two. Their consultation

showed there was 2-1 against having a second question. There is

technical difficulties with it. It would cause confusion. We looked at

it. We seriously considered having a second question question but when

we looked at the detail we could not find a way to make it happen.

It is important that after 2014 that people understand that no

doesn't mean no change and why I am wanting to work with the Labour

Party and the others, including the SNP, to come up with a set of

proposals, to develop and deliver the plans where most Scots are,

which is more powers for Scotland, but within a federal UK. Those

powers must be seriously delineated and conveyed to the Scottish people

before the independence referendum. They must be cast in stone so there

is no possibility of either party going back. I think the SNP have a

role. It is important that the SNP play a part in that debate and it

is not juts the unionist parties. They may not, and if they don't it

is up to the unionist parties. Who said it is impossible to come up

with a third question. The position of politicians is to serve the

people, I think that was an anti- democratic decision, given the

numbers involved. I was wondering if Scotland becomes independent and

hopefully gets rid of Trident how With the idea of devolution, I

think once we have proven we can solve the powers that we have

already, such as health, for example, we have some of the most

shocking obesity rates and heart disease, and once we can solve the

problems we have, I would consider to go on to devolution even further.

Angela, if there is a no vote in 2014, what happens? What is clear

to me is that the status quo is no longer acceptable. We have a

million people in Scotland in favour of independence. Wefs

another million who are in favour of more powers. And if you scratch

beneath any devolved issues such as health, there is a reserved issue

such as poverty and inequality. I am rather tired.... These things

can't be dealt with under the current system The devolution

system is still very limited. Why would we not want to be like every

other country in the world where we make our own decisions. As

individual we value our personal independence. As we come of age, we

decide where we work, how we earn our money, who we share our lives

with, who our friends are and who we share responsibility with and

who we take responsibility for. Why would we expect or want anything

less than for our nation. Let's just say in 2014 there is a no vote,

what actually happens? Does your party then campaign for the kind of

devo max... I will accept the will of the Scottish people as I have

done at every election that I have... Does your party then

campaign for our powers for the Scottish Parliament I am tired of

the opposition parties and their commissionitis, it's always jam

tomorrow. I understand why people are pressing, I understand people

are pressing but I am tired of people promising jam tomorrow and

every coming up with any of the detail. The point I was going to

make is yes, I understand why people want more information and

more detail from the SNP. I just wish that sometimes we could get

back more detail and information from the opposition parties. As a

member of the SNP, all my political life, I have argued what we would

do both with the powers of devolution, but more importantly

with the powers of independence. These people want to know what is

going to happen whenever they put their cross. Say in 20 shrbgs the

answer is no, do you work with the other parties to bring about more

powers for the Scottish Parliament in the meantime. It would be easier

for the Greens to engage with that debate than the SNP. We are not

brought together as a party by the issue of independence or any other

approach to the constitution. Most of us, not the whole party, but

most of us, every time it is put to our conference, support

independence, I will be voting yes. But if there is a No vote, the same

problem has to be resolved. There is a long standing tradition in

Scotland that sovereignty, the ultimate authority about how we

govern ourselves lies with the people. In the UK sovereignty lies

with the Crown in parliament. It is a representation of the monarchy ss

the embodyment of sovereignty. If there is a No vote and we have a

debate about what else we might do, that conflict still exists. Can

Scotland simply assert the right to determine how it is going to be

governed or does it need to be waiting for permission from the UK.

Because that permission doesn't seem like it would be forthcoming

at the moment. If we vote no, there is a danger that the UK political

classes, media, turn around with a syringele voice and say -- single

voice, say enough with Scotland already, you have had your chance,

give up with it now. Let's get more points from the audience. Should

there be a no vote in the Scottish independence referendum and

Scotland should go on to be devo max, what new powers will Holyrood

gain that it wouldn't gain under int pence. Nobody knows yet.

you concerned that some people are confusing political independence

with a separate cultural identity? We will leave that one hanging. We

will come to more questions in a second. Before we move on to the

next question, if you would like to find out more information on these

issues, all you need to do is visit Scotland's future section of the

To our next question and it comes from Grant from Fife. Is it not

fair to say Scotland would have less international influence if it

splits from the rest of the UK? I think there is no doubt we would

have less influence. We might be able to make our own decisions and

have absolutely our own way, but I would rather be part of the UK with

the big clout throughout the UK that brings with that. If Scottish

ministers were sitting at the top table in Europe wouldn't they have

more influence than they do at the minute? All the preparation for

these big EU summits, where is the big power, it is round about

between Germany France, Britain. The big nations of the EU gets

together and effectively decide the agenda and direction of travel. I

want to be part of that. I want to make sure Scotland has a big place

at the top table, not just a seat at the top table.

APPLAUSE I have to say, I am always a little

bit perturbed when I hear the boys talking about influence on the big

world stage. I see Scotland as a small modern country, that will

bring good and along with other small independent European

countries and other countries around the world will be a good

friend and a good neighbour. This notion that the UK is some big boy

in the international scene is somewhat out of date. I just want

to see Scotland no better, no worse than any other country and to be an

equal partner with our foremost friend and ally England and the

rest of the UK and to have a seat as an equal nation with our friends

in Europe. Anas Sarwar, is influence overrated? I think Angela

needs to come back to the real world. We have come through an

economic storm and we had a Scottish leader, Prime Minister in

the UK stopping a global recession from becoming a depression. We have

a permanent seat on the UN Security Council to fight oppression around

the world. We have the greatest aid agency in the world, which is based

in East Kilbride in Scotland, employs 450 people and has a budget

of �7 billion. That is fantastic influence. Actually to make a

genuine difference to the lives of people around the world. Why is it

that no UK government has ever contributed 0.7% of the GDP to

international rate. All talk no action. #Colour#Blue The last UK

Labour government created the department for international

development, trebled international aid and made the commitment to

legislation for 0.7% on that commitment. More views from the

audience. Keep on speaking about international influence but the UK

is a big party and if Scotland is independent it will become one of

the small European countries who has very little influence at all.

Is it possible people just watch Braveheart the night before and go

Why does the SNP consider it necessary for Scotland to remain in

NATO if we become independent? We seem seem to be working on the

assumption that Scotland will become part of the EU but we have

had no guarantee of this, that is a ridiculous thing to assume.

On the issue of influence, what does history tell us about

influence? Come to the present first of all, it is ironic that

some of our panel are talking about being at the heart of Europe. I

would have thought the current government at Westminster has

become detached from Europe. And doesn't play any significant role

at all at the moment. It is almost an absentee government. The second

thing is, what does this word influence mean, who has any

particular influence apart from the biggest three or four biggest

states in the world. What we want is a society that is Scottish, what

we think is our identity, and we should be satisfied with that, in

the way any small country is. I don't get the sense of these small

countries in Europe saying we don't have influence. What they are

concerned with is the well-being of their people. The final thing and

this is coming on to the past, such has been the extraordinary

migrations of the Scottish people, recorded in a seminal text

published last year, such has been the extraordinary of the Scottish

people since the 13th century that we are one of the very few small

countries in the world to have an international brand. That may not

necessarily be political influence, it may not be military influence,

but it is certainly a sense of cultural identity which counts

across the globe. Just on that point, your party is

in a coalition, where a sizable majority of those backbenchers who

support David Cameron would like to pull out of Europe. It doesn't make

your job of convincing us being at the heart of Europe easy? It is a

small proportion of the hoicks. The majority, the Conservative Party

are pro-Europe, we want to make the most of the EU. I don't get this

idea that suddenly there is a massive surge to leave the EU. That

is not the case. Do we need influence in the world? The Liberal

Democrats are probably a good example of why dealing inside the

UK government doesn't always give you the influence you might want. I

agree with some of the things Angela was saying about bigness and

this infatuation with bigness. We are part of a big country with big

weapons and take part in big wars and we project aggressive military

power around the world. That is not the kind of influence that I think

we should be proud of We shouldn't be part of NATO as an independent

country? I would be very much opposed to us joining NATO. The

idea of getting rid of Trident and asking another organisation to

deploy nuclear weapons on our behalf, which is what membership of

NATO implies, is completely wrong. This idea that a permanent seat on

the UN Security Council is one of the things we are reluctant to give

up. It reserves permanent seats for some of the biggest arms dealers on

the planet. Influence is very often very often about size, it is about

the actions you take. Although the climate change conference was

terribly disappointing, Scotland was being taken seriously in that

process. Because we had taken actions. We had passed legislation

with some of the strongest targets on climate change anywhere in the

world. It is actions that would give us influence, not just being

part of something big. As a young carer I don't understand how the UK

government can say they want to spend �350 million on weapons when

they are slashing benefits for David Cameron doesn't really care

about Scotland, he's English. your party in favour of renewing

Trident and spending the the tens of blings it would cost. I am

supporter of nuclear disarmament. I think we need to work together to

make sure we rid the world of nuclear weapons. Your party

wouldn't renew Trident. Going back to one of the points that the young

man made earlier on about assertion and fact, the SNP is saying we will

be members of the EU with the same opt out, but never sought the legal

advice. They say we will be members of NATO, but don't need to have

nuclear weapons. They say we would be automatic members of the

Monetary Policy Committee but never sought the advice of the Bank of

England, it is saying the SNP will write the rules and everyone else

will agree with us. That is not a credible position at all and it

disrespects Scotland and the the terms of the debate.

On the specifics of NATO, talking about your change of policy policy

on NATO as moral hypocrisy. Patrick has a different point of view from

mine, that is his democratic right. We will both campaign for a yes

vote in 2014, but ultimately in 2016 we will staning stand on

different manifestoes and different parties in those elections.

isn't that at the heart of your party stands a contradiction on

being against nuclear weapons but wanting to be part of an

organisation that uses them as umbrella protection. Scotland is an

outward looking country. Many of our security arrangements are

already done through NATO. And personally, I just didn't want the

first thing that an independent Scotland to do was actually to walk

away from an non-nuclear allies in NATO and elsewhere. In this

parliamentary term opposing membership of NATO, it is not a

principal move. You You haven't asked your membership to change

your minds because of the argument. But because you think it helps you

in the debate. Unlike the Labour Party we had a very democratic

debate, the supreme governing body annual conference, and I would have

thought it would be welcomed and indeed very refreshing for a modern

political party to have an open democratic debate. Willie Rennie,

given that we hear there is uncertainty over Europe and NATO,

should the Government at Westminster start asking the

questions, asking the questions of Europe, so we get definitive

answers? What we need to avoid is more opinion. We need more fact.

The Westminster government says it won't ask the questions of Europe.

It is not the position of the UK government to negotiate the

independence of Scotland. Let's get the final question tonight.

What is going to happen in the sporting teams in terms of the

Olympics? An interesting question. In an independent Scotland? There

would be a Scottish team. Would there be an issue there of some of

our Olympics, who compete as part of Team GB, compete alongside those

from outside Scotland. There is going to be so much share being the

former UK, that is a big question, it was on the radio the other day,

what is the UK going to call itself if it is independence, which is a

fascinating question, south Britain perhaps. That is irrelevant. The

point is there is so much sharing, Bank of England support, currency

arrangements, the Queen etc, I would like to see an independent

Scotland at least one distinctive Scottish element, AKA a Scottish

team in the Olympics. I don't think it is a huge concern. I think you

have got benefits of being part of being part of a bigger team,

Katherine Grainger and others. It is a good reason but it is not the

biggest reason for Scotland to stay part of the UK. If we were

independent we would have our own team and like other small countries

we would need to invest in specific sports, like cycling we would

continue to invest in that and continue to do well. Probably we

would continue to do poorly at the football. Whether people support

one flag or another, one team or another, one identity or another,

those aren't the reasons why we should be voting either way in the

referendum. I have never seen Braveheart but I don't think anyone

should be fired up to vote yes or not based on a national identity.

For me, politics is about people, it is not about Bannockburn or

Braveheart. I have to concede, I don't know a lot about sport, sorry

to appeal to gender stereotypes, but I would imagine in an

independent Scotland, Scotland would participate in the same way

other nations do. Braveheart is such an appalling film that it is

one of the best arguments against independence.

I don't think the Olympics will change the result either way in the

referendum. It was such a tremendous thing that what Britain

Chris -- Chris Hoy who won those medals and Kath Grainger who was

rowing with an English woman, I won't just supporting the front of

the boat, I was supporting the back of the boat and that is where we

should remain part of the UK. Time has run out on us. We have

come to the end of our time for tonight. Let me thank our

panellists and our audience here. Thank you all at home for watching.