Higher Education Special Free Speech

This is Free Speech. Your chance to have your say about what matters to

This is what dreams are made of. Obviously I believe in the freedom

Good evening. Welcome to Free Speech for another busy month. I am

Jake Humphrey and tonight we are live from the Corn Exchange in

Edinburgh. Good evening. That is good. That is good. We have a

lively bunch in here. Getting serious for a moment, if you are

waiting for your A-level results you might not be as perky as

everyone here. Highers came out last week, with a record number of

passes, but what comes next? Are you going to university or

following a different path? We have conducted a special poll of 500

young people to find out their views on higher education. In the

meantime, we want you to get in touch with us and tell Michelle De

Swarte your point of view on higher education and anything else we

debate. She is waiting for you, so Your comments could be part of

OK, you know how to get in touch. You have met our overexcited

audience. It is time to meet the panel. She is performing on the

Edinburgh Fringe stage in less than an hour-and-a-half, well done to

her for being here. Comedian Shappi Khorsandi. Well done. Up next, free

market campaigner from the right- wing think-tank the Institute of

Economic Affairs, Ruth Porter is with us. Now, at just 27 he is the

youngest SNP MSP which means he is a Scottish National Party member of

the Scottish Parliament, therefore he is definitely Scottish. Humza

Yousaf is with us tonight. And finally, Catholic journalist and

social media commentator Milo Yiannopoulos. OK, so those are the

panellists and the debate is about to fire up. Before that, do me a

favour. If you are on Twitter, grab your phone, get your tablet because

this is the only show on TV with the power bar. Only you can power

it up by letting this lot know what you think. This is the way it works.

Use the #yes or #no followed by a I am sure you are getting the gist

So, please, don't sit there shouting at the TV, start changing

the show by tweeting the power bar. We look forward to you getting in

touch. First, when we raise the subject of the death penalty, we

couldn't believe the strength of the response that we got. Marvin

Wilson was executed last week in Texas, although he may have been

mentally impaired, and James Holmes may face the death penalty if found

guilty in Colorado. On Sunday night Amal Fashanu meets a survivor.

I stood up people were helping people out of the theatre, just

covered in blood. I don't know how many people were just dragging and

crawling, and running, and screaming... It was the most

horrific thing I had ever seen. It was like so much blood - it is not

like what you see in Hollywood at all. A tough watch, that show is

coming on Sunday, so to kick off the discussion about the death

penalty, let us go to our audience. First Lisa. Where are you? Can the

death penalty ever be justified? Shappi, you first. That was hard to

watch, that bit. Can it ever be justified? No. It can't. It is as

black-and-white as that to me. How many times can you, if, depending

justice or revenge, if someone is a mass murderer how many times can

you kill them? So that is not justice, that is revenge, and are

we civilised? Are we going to seek revenge? We can take this person

and protect the public from them, because we are a cilvilised people

who don't do this. One thing I have to say about the death penalty.

Some countries have public execution, we used to in Britain,

and I have this, the same idea about those who are for and against

the death penalty as people who eat meat. If you are going to eat meat

you should be able to kill a chicken with your bare hands. If

you are pro the death penalty, you should be able to push that switch

yourself or go to a public execution. Is that the sort of

person you want to be? For me, it is that black-and-white. It's not

part of a civilised society. Milo? If you think about child-killers,

serial killers, I am not convinced the number of people, you know, I

think there are, there is a sizeable portion of people who

might be, and the other thing is, we are told that a representative

democracy, the point is to save us from ourselves, that is why

Governments enact legislation that isn't what people really want. I

find that patronising, and you know, I think people do a good job of

governing themselves when they are given the opportunity. In poll

after poll after poll it shows the British public is in favour of

death penalty. I am not saying give them a chat show. I think perhaps

the public might say, "I don't want to pay for him to be alive either.

So a human life is about money? the argument would be when somebody

has taken so many other lives they have relinquished their own right.

So you are saying you agree? certain cases it can be justified.

Let us find out what people are saying online. There is an

overwhelming response. Philip says "Only if guilty beyond reasonable

doubt, and if the defendant is declared sane." And Shannon has a

good point. She says the problem with the death penalty, never 100%

sure of guilt. Look at America and how many convictions have been

overturned. Give us your thought on that, Ruth? This is a question that

goes to the heart of who we are as a country. I think once you get to

the point where you see, actually, the Government is going to sanction

the cold calculated killing of someone for no other reason than

retribution, you have changed the nature of how we view human life.

It is not for self-defence or another reason. Picking up on this

question, of the nature of democracy, I think it is totally

understandable that we all have incredibly strong feelings about

this. I mean, these are people in many cases who have done the worst

possible imaginable acts. And I think for that reason, we need to

make sure that life means life in more cases than it tends to. I

think there is a sense in which there is some freedoms and rights

which go beyond, if people... People in this country thought, I

don't think we would go along with that. Humza? There is a couple of

things. I agreeed with the points Shappi was making earlier. Where

ever the death penalty is used, it is used disproportionally. Look at

the USA. There are more Afro- Americans. On top of that as Shappi

was saying, the death penalty cannot be undone, so here in the UK,

where we have a fairly robust system, we still have miscarriages

of justice. We can let people go free, the state can compensate them.

Until we find a way of bringing death penalty should remain in the

past. OK. Michelle, your first thoughts on the power bar this

evening. Let us find out if people have responded to your comments by

firing up the power bar. Humza. Off to a good start there. So that is

what people at home are thinking. The audience? Fire away. Two points

to pick up on there. One, in America the death penalty is for

things like cop killers and mass murderers and drug lords, people

who put themselves out on the firing line to die every day. So,

is there really any sort of... Would it put people off, these

people who are being put on death penalty, is it a deterrent for

them? You talk about the - sorry, Milo, you talk about the cost. In

America, 20, 30 years, a prisoner can spend on Death Row in legal

battle, appeals, because you have to be 100% sure. That costs

millions. That is an interesting point. We know it cost on average

�50,000 a year for a prisoner to be kept in prison. So a 20 year

sentence you are looking at �1 million. Is that part of the

argument? It is too expensive to keep some people in prison.

answer is to shorten the amount of time people are on Death Row. If

cost is a consideration, then I suppose you need to look at why

people are on Death Row for 30 years, which seems to be odd for

sentences to be handed down. have to be sure of what you are

doing. If you choose to use the death penalty, you have to be 100%

sure, if you have to go through years, the cost will be high. Not

that we should be putting the cost, but it will never be a low cost if

you decide to have a system where you use the death penalty. Lots of

talk it will deter people from committing crime, but since 1967,

1,300 or more people have had the death penalty. Maybe that isn't an

argument. I imagine if I committed a crime so heinous as murder, then

I would be a person who felt like I had nothing to lose in life. I

don't think that the death penalty would deter someone acting on those

instincts they have. Also, can I just tell you something, just from

a personal point of view. When my uncle was 19, he was shot dead by

an off-duty policeman, and in Iran, the, my grandparents had the choice

to let his murderer live or receive the death penalty. And my

grandmother, from completely a non- religious point of view, her

instinct was to say, "Killing another mother's son isn't going to

bring back my own." Although she was tortured to her dying day about

the loss of her son, the one thing she knew is that she didn't kill

someone, she didn't commit, so that is such a personal thing. That guy

that killed my uncle, do you think that he would have not killed him?

It was in a demonstration. I don't think the deterrent thing works, I

think that you only create more badness, if you continue. A life

for a life doesn't work from Shappi. I want to get into the audience.

have two interesting takes on the saying an eye for an eye. It should

be justified for the sake of the victims who have lost a life. Then

we have Lauren who says "An eye for an eye makes the whole world

blind." One person online saying it evens things up, Shappi says it is

not the case. Any time a murder happens, every person is a victim.

Whether it is the killings in America from the Batman movie or at

home, and you cannot let a victim of a crime decide the punishment in

a civilised society. That is not humane, that is not natural. At the

back? Do you think if the death penalty was brought in there would

be a reduction within murders in the UK? That is not something we

have seen in the US. Do any of you think you would see a reduction in

crime? No. Crystal clear. I think the death penalty is right in these

circumstances, especially with the Batman shooting, because you get

life. What is the benefit of it? You have to take it in the next

level. If they kill like 12 people, as they did in the Batman shootings,

I just think it is right, that, you know... You lose your life.

have destroy 12 people's life and their whole families's life as well.

Gentleman to your left. Would a better priority not be to tighten

gun laws in the US? Would that not cut crime? A different subject, but

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 50 seconds

you are watching this at home, to We will wrap that question up.

Thank you. Now let's talk about 70% of young people believed to

rich and fees are to blame. No such drop off in Scotland where

university education is free if you are Scottish. 57% think going to

university is worthwhile and the benefits outweigh the cost. Here

I was working in various jobs. family always wanted me to have

opportunities. I wanted the experience and opportunities you

get by going to university. My life After I finished my apprenticeship,

I got offered a job. I like being in front of people and talking to

people. It's my ideal job. studying information systems, which

is a mash up between computer science, marketing, business and

working with people. Pay day. first pay day. Today should justify

the harder work and longer shifts. It is good to have got my first pay.

I am delighted. I kind of stumbled into student politics and getting

involved with my union. That has been the most life-changing

experience. It is that opportunity you have when you are at university

to do those sort of things that you will never do in the rest of your

life. That is something I really love. My job is secure. I have

everything ready to go, as long as I work hard. That is me set up for

I work hard. That is me set up for life. Get a house, a mortgage,

whatever I want to do. It is there if I want it. Two different

approaches. I love that you are already thinking about the pension

and the house! You are enjoying the social side, right? Yes. You have a

question. Given the economic climate, many young people are

considering the worth of higher education, what do the panel think?

Is it worth it, Ruth? Those two stories were awesome. They

demonstrate what is central to this. We are all completely different.

One of the things which is a big shame when it comes to this issue

is that we have become obsessed with this idea that somehow going

to university is what makes you educated. I think increasingly that

is an outdated way of looking at education when you look at the

impact of technology, you look at the scope of the media, you look at

the changing face of communications, the way we access information and

the ability that we have to learn, I think it is quite outdated to

focus so heavily on university to concentrate on that. But there is

still a place, I think, for some people and for certain skills in

terms of going to university. I think, again, then, we have a

system where there is a massive focus on the standard three-year,

or four years in Scotland, for undergraduate degrees, where you

have massive summer holidays. We need much more diversity in the way

universities deliver. Your power bar went shooting up to the top

during that! Shappi, you were looking nonplussed? No, I was

imagining a scenario where a young person says, "I haven't got a

degree, but I have spent loads of time on the internet!" LAUGHTER

APPLAUSE. You can understand Ruth's point, that there is more than one

way to get an education? I think that is a little bit of a cop out

attitude that we are now having towards education. I think what we

are saying is it is OK, little people, who don't have the money,

you can read comic books, perhaps! It is such an important thing that

we take this issue seriously. This will go on for generations. We have

to see beyond the financial crisis and see what values we are now

instilling where we are saying that only certain people can go to

university because what we are doing then - we have a free

healthcare. Healthcare is as important as an education. If you

are educated, if you have a degree, formal education is the biggest

factor of social mobility. This matter is a matter like so many

others about class. What we are saying is that we think that this

formal education is only suited to certain people in certain sections

of society. Then money comes up. Someone has to pay for everyone to

go to university? I'm not an economist. Get George Osborne,

right, tip him upside-down, give him a shake, and let all that

change roll into the coffers of council estate kids and pay for

their education! This is massively an issue about class. OK. APPLAUSE.

Michelle? Shappi, you seem to have someone who is in agreement with

you. "Surely it is a bad thing if people are academically restricted

by cost rather than intellectual ability?" That seems to be your

point. Another one: "I learnt practical media skills for �20 a

term." Worth a thought. Certainly is. Let's talk about this. Shappi

saying everyone needs education. Maybe it is the only way. Nick, you

have an example of the fact that perhaps it is not just about going

to university, right? Yes, I mean, for myself, I left - I was running

a business at school. I thep went on to university while I was --

then went on to university while I was running that business. I then

dropped out of university. If I can go out into the real world and run

my business and go full steam ahead with it and learn from the mistakes,

then that is what I was going to do. University is the real world. I

think it is the real world. It is brilliant that you have done what I

did. I have a friend who was a musician. That is an exception.

Brilliant that you are doing so wonderfully. Is it everything,

university? Is it not part of the way... It should be offered to

everybody, for free. You get a 16- year-old that has to make that

decision - I know you have years to pay it off. A 16-year-old that

thinks 25 grand, am I going to put my parents through that?! They are

going to be put off. It is important to - this is something

that makes me angry. It is something that's happened with the

discussion of tuition fees. It is partly a political play. There's

been this campaign to scare people about tuition fees. Now, this is a

horrible tragedy. What happens is it breaks down the element of the

education system. It is persuading and pushing people from

underprivileged backgrounds who are more than intelligent enough to go

to university and scaring them off. The reality is you don't pay it

back until you are earning a certain amount of money. After 30

years, it evaporates. It is not a horrible commitment if you get a

good job. If you don't get a good job, you don't pay it! What's been

a horrible betrayal of young people has been the left-wing press which

should stick up for these people, scaremongering about tuition fees.

You have to lay some of the blame for the nosediving applications at

a press that continually reminds people how scarily expensive it is.

The problem is that they are paying for it. If you manage to get into

Oxford or Cambridge, nine grand a year is is a brilliant deal. I'm so

sorry, I feel so strongly about this. I'm really sorry. This makes

me want to cry. What you are saying is it is about money. What we are

telling young people is that it costs to get an education. To my

dying day, I will chant what I chanted as a student, education is

a right, not a privilege! APPLAUSE. Let's dive into the audience. Let's

hear from people who were put off by the cost of going to university.

Anybody? Yes? At the back? I left school at 16. I have quite a good

position. I support people back into work. A lot of the people that

have been to university go to a job interview and an employer says,

"Can you tell me about the time you did this?" and they don't have the

answer. Those who have been to university, let's hear from you?

Yes? I went to university for four years. I came out without a degree.

I came out after volunteering from my Students' Union and when I was

in school, I couldn't speak on the telephone. I work in a call centre

now! LAUGHTER. It worked then. No degree but you gained a lot?

Exactly. The gentleman there? education and a free university

education should be a universal right and not a luxury and a

privilege for the rich. APPLAUSE. think I agree with what Shappi was

saying. I went to university and did a medical degree but I was also

raised by a single parent on income support. If I had to face �9,000 a

year in tuition fees, even if I had to pay that back, it would not have

gone. How much did you come out debt-wise? About �18,000. Earning

as a professional, it is manageable. I will pay it off. I still haven't

paid it off and I have been working for six years. Maybe the answer is

people have to pay for it but we have to keep the cost manageable.

agree with what Shappi was saying. There is a fundamental principle -

education is a right and it should be free. This idea of blaming the

left-wing press for it, it is ludicrous. People will be totally

put off. Be you from an underprivileged background or the

squeezed middle. Psychologically, there is already a barrier there

before you start work. This excuse about look, we don't have enough

money in the coffers, you can't say you don't have enough money and

then manage to find �100 billion to renew nuclear Trident missiles. You

can't... The English taxpayer pays for Scottish... That is a

patronising argument! In Scotland we pay 9.6% of the tax and make 4%

of the population. So we compare pretty damn well! APPLAUSE. OK.

is an issue of priority. The to make education free for those

that it has an interest over. Now, it has that duty. If the UK

Government doesn't want to prioritise education, that is up to

them. It is not just a question of priorities. It is a question of how

do you make higher education more affordable? The current idea that

we have this standard degree, it is not the way of making it affordable.

If you look at doing things like - it is not good value for anyone.

Someone is still paying for this. If you had things... Don't spend

that �100 billion on Trident, close down that �25 billion legal tax

loophole and then you have �125 billion to spend on education.

do we not have more options on where you can go and you can work

intensively over the summer and get it done in two years? We need a

whole range of different options so people have got choices. I need to

say something. Milo, if you want to discuss the Mickey Mouse economics,

why don't we gun after the people who don't pay their tax, the

wealthy people who do not pay their tax? And also I want to put this

idea out there that I think education, that time you spend is

not all about getting a job at the end of it, particularly if you are

doing an arts degree. I have some sympathy with this argument. You

are right. Particularly in an environment where most graduates

don't come out with jobs. The great thing about university is the

opportunity it gives you to flourish. Let's speak to the

audience. I am going into my last year in university studying

journalism, they tell us to get work experience. If I had looked

for it when I left high school, would I have a job already in my

sector? We have people who have taken apprenticeships. Give us your

thoughts. I am not just at university for the education, I

have done a lot, after leaving school and have put something back

into the economy. When I say higher education, I am talking about

college and other education, but to say it is not about everyone has to

go university or had to go college. The fact more and more people don't

have that choice, from my primary school I am one of three out of a

class of 30 who made it to university. From the area I come

from, that is appalling. From St Andrews, 12 people from over 1,000

people from the poorest 20% in the country. That is, these decisions

are made long before they get to the door of university. It is about

everyone having the equal access to education. That is the problem at

the moment. Of course that doesn't guarantee you any jobs, at the

moment, the unemployment for graduates is at the highest for ten

years. I don't know if you have experience of that. I just left

university this summer and I managed to get a job. Not very high

paying. What are you doing? Customer service administrator.

Would you have got that without your degree? Possibly. Are you glad

you went through the university system? Absolutely. The value of

education is more than just the education itself. But I think when

people like Shappi talk about it as a right, what we need to do is

focus on the education where it matters, which is primary and

secondary education. The Government is spending more on university

education as an afterthought. The Government spending on that group

is more based onto the middle class, I think that is unfair on people

who are on lower incomes. Did you pay tuition fees? I didn't. Would

have you have gone if you had to? Yes. One of the things I would like

to bring up, I think it's a great cornerstone of Scottish education,

pupils who leave school and go to university are given free tuition

fees. One of the problems I see is there are sometimes pupils who

perhaps should not be going on to university but perhaps have the

qualifications to allow them to get into a university and they decide

the route is the best way to go, one or two years down the line they

drop out and they probably don't gain a lot of experience. Maybe a

little bit, but not a great amount. It would be worthwhile for more

pupils to go and do more vocational qualifications. We used to have a

good focus on that, and that seems to have gone. I think with the new

school curriculum we might see that coming back. You guys are doing

vocational qualifications working for ScotRail, is that right? Give

us your opinion, what it is like doing that? Are you glad you did

that? It is the best decision I have made. I think on the job,

working for ScotRail I have gained lots of different things. I have

gained qualifications, we have done practical things, such as the Duke

of Edinburgh Award. That is not something that would be easy to fit

in if I was at university. Before we go back to Michelle, Nick, how

much is your business worth now? Not exactly sure. Roughly? This

year it is a third year trading. It is over �500,000. Not bad, is it.

Not a bad story. Michelle, online? Adam has one. He says one problem

with this is there is no jobs and you can have the best degree but

still end working in a fast-food restaurant. I did, after my degree.

Loved it. Thank you for contributing! Finlay agrees with

that chap at the back. He says rising fees should encourage

businesses to make more apprenticeships for school leavers.

Looking at the power bar, why do you think you are slipping behind,

Milo? I don't know. It might have been that thing... Thank you very

much. We will have to leave that there. If you want to get involved

you can dive on to Twitter and use the power bar to tell our

panellists what you think. This is Of course. You will get some votes.

Please don't sit there shouting at the TV, get in touch and start

changing the programme using the power bar. Now, same sex marriage.

It will be legal in Scotland by 2015 and England may not be too far

behind with legislation either. But religious leaders have objected to

the proposals and claim they haven't been listened to. Let us

find out what the audience have to say. Where is Emma? Fire away.

you believe that religious bodies have been marginalised by the

introduction of equal marriage in Scotland? Marriage is not

exclusively a religious institution, it is not a secular institution. I

think it is important to listen to what churches have to say. Here is

why. Because this was a cynical marketing ploy by David Cameron,

this gay marriage thing. As a gay man, I am not particularly

interested in it. I don't want it, I have the rights and

responsibilities available to me through civil partnership. I find

it patronising. It is used as an electoral weapon. What worries me

is someone is going to challenge this in the Court of Human Rights,

gay activists have said they will do it, to try and force churches to

conduct gay weddings. When that happens and you have imams who are

told you have to perform gay weddings, you know, when you have

Catholic Churches and Church of England churches padlocking up

because they can't accept it, you start a war. It is totally

unnecessary for us ever to have this brinkmanship, which will

happen. The other problem is a practical one, given nobody wants

it. Nobody is asking for it, and it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter,

we have civil partnership. It is exactly the same. It is just a word.

This word. Words are important. is triggering rows, and if you look

at the countries where gay marriage has been introduced, like Spain,

look at the incidents of homophobic violence that follows. It is not

right, but given there is no real advantage, there is no up side to

introducing it, given it was only an electoral tool, do we want to

kick that off in our own country? As a gay man I couldn't be less

interested. I don't want it, I don't need it, I don't know why we

are having a discussion about it. The word equality - is the word

equality not important? As a gay man, listen, it is so simple. This

situation is black-and-white. Do we want equality or not? We have

equality. You don't. We don't. Civil partnership is better. I say

this as a Catholic journalist who does believe. For people who don't

believe, you don't have any of that baggage. As a gay man, you are like

that one Asian guy that comes along and wants to join the BNP. When I

tell you what happens, right, yes... When people run out of arguments

they tend to get personal. Do carry on. Look, if you legalise something.

Can you understand it is confusing that as a gay religious man you

don't believe... It is simple. I don't want to be patronised and I

don't want to precipitate a war between the churches and gay people,

and I didn't want to trigger homophobic violences. All of those

thing also happen. I don't know what is confusing. So not to

trigger off racial violence you are saying I shouldn't marry a white

guy? That is different. You are saying that this is black-and-white,

but the point is, the Government is balancing very carefully different

people's freedoms and rights, I understand that. Surely the fact

there is such a high risk the European Court would force

religious organisations that did not want to conduct same sex

married ceremonies. Until we can find a way around that, that is a

problem. May I make my point clearer, I understand what you are

saying, I haven't explained myself yet. What I think happens is we

have to force our culture to catch up with what I think the majority

of people want, by regarding homosexuality as natural and equal.

When we legalise something, even if the religious institutions can't

implement it, if the law says this is natural and normal, which it is,

eventually it will be the religion that will have to catch up. They

will be the ones who are abnormal. That is an important thing, if they

can't implement it, it is hard to force them. Humza. Scotland are

leading the way, are you proud of it? I think the argument itself

centres round - it is a difficult debate. It is, and it is not easy

to have. There is a lot of courage shown by those who have decided to

take it forward. The argument is about religious freedom. It centres

around religious freedom for me. Those who don't want to do it

should be protected from not doing it. That should be on the face of

the bill, it should be through the Equalities Act and that should be

given, and that from the Scottish Government perspective, that

equality, that reassurance - let me finish the point, but the point is

for me, religious freedom cuts both ways. So I am a practising Muslim,

fasting today, I have another hour to go before I can eat, so I am

practising, to me, whatever my views may be or my mosque's view

might be, that shouldn't impinge on others who want to practise same

sex marriage. I don't drink alcohol, I have never touched a drop. That

doesn't mean I want to stop communion where wine is drunk.

Protect those who don't want to do it, don't do it at the expense of

those who believe it is their religious right. You can see the

power bar shooting up to the top with those comments. "I am not

homophobic but as a Christian I don't believe in same sex marriage.

It is against my beliefs and I shouldn't be attacked for having my

own opinion." Did someone attack this person? That glibness is

typical of something that religious people do experience. They do feel

like they can't express their views. Haven't the churches being offered

an exemption, so they have been listened to. Milo, you said a civil

partnership is similar. If it is, what is the big deal in changing it

and accepting it? It is legally identical. First you can build in

protections but they are meaningless as a country by country

level. Because we have this umbrella of the Court of Human

Rights, it can rule them to be illegal. They, the European Court

of Human Rights can rule such clauses to be illegal and overturn

them, that is what is going to happen. So your question, it is

identical. It is a word, it doesn't matter except to some. To those

people, it is an important concept. And the problem is, it is going to

precipitate tension, freedoms for different groups, they do butt up

against each other and you have to make a judgment. Nathan, is it

important to you?. Yes, I think to pick up on what Milo said, it is

not just a word. As religious bodies have said, marriage is an

institution. At the moment, it is an institution that people are

excluded from, purely on the basis of their gender identity and

sexuality, that is not equality. They are not excluded by the state.

They are not excluded because we have civil partnership. It is the

church's right to exclude you if it doesn't consider it to be

appropriate. It is their right to be able to do so when they want to.

There is nothing you can do about that. The European Court has no

power to overturn it. That isn't true. It is. They can issue a

statement of incompatability. The UK Government have been told by the

European Parliament to allow prisoners to vote and David Cameron

has refused to do that, so we can clearly see they have no power to

overturn our laws. We have said over and over again, throughout

this campaign we do not want to force anybody to conduct same sex

marriage. This is about religious freedom for those bodies that want

to conduct it to do. It is about secular institutions to conduct

same sex marriage. That is an institution that as a gay man I am

excluded from at the moment. Michelle, a couple of points

online? You have some support from Jake. "Civil partnership is the

same and we get our own name for it." We have our own special

treatment. That is not enough for you. We have more than marriage. We

have better than regular people. We have our own brilliant institution

just for us. What is the problem? That is not equality. When the

Government has to create a special institution for a special group of

people. That is not equality. That says I am not equal to the other

group. We will leave that there. We are going to move on to our next

topic. We are here in Scotland, in Edinburgh, we are live, and the

hottest political debate is the question of independence. We

thought the often thing to do was to ask a bunch of comedians what

they think of the issue. Everyone says we are on the road to

independence. That is a very busy road! This started over ten years

ago when we got devolution. This was a big deal for us. I'm from

Glasgow. Parts of my city haven't got evolution! The "yes" campaign,

to "no" campaign. A lot of Scottish celebrities supported it. We have

Brian Cox, we had Midge Ure! We can sell anything to the world. I'm

convinced that this is the Loch Ness monster. You get independence,

you get to keep all the oil! England will turn round, "Guess

what, we have invented the electric car. Unlucky!" It reminds me of the

Spice Girls. When it comes to Scottish independence, you are

talking about divorce and divorce is expensive! I'm all for Scottish

independence. I am hoping when the one o'clock gun goes off, it is

another English person getting fired back over the border!

Scotland don't do it, we need you. Well done. APPLAUSE. Very good. OK.

That is how we are getting home, fired back over the border. That

got a few chuckles up here. If you are coming up to the Fringe, you

can see Shappi's show. Julie? you think the recent success of

Team GB has had an adverse effect on the SNP's chances of being

successful in the independence referendum? Humza? Comedians should

rule the world rather than politicians! I don't think the

Olympics will matter a jot. That is not what the issue is about. The

idea of independence is not about taking a chainsaw and cutting and

casting Scotland off into the North Sea. The point is that is not what

independence is about. I enjoyed the success of Mo Farah, Jessica

Ennis and Chris Hoy. That doesn't change because you want to transfer

powers and you believe powers should be transferred from London

to Scotland. Fundamentally, independence is about that. I don't

think it will matter. Do you relate to that, Milo? I will keep it brief.

I give up any hope of having any power bar left! It is hilarious

that Scotland thinks it can go independent. If you can survive on

your own, jettison yourself off to be an economic power the size of

Iceland, good luck to you! This idea that you are not worth

anything, you can't survive on your own, but we want to keep a hold of

you, it doesn't seem to stack up very well. APPLAUSE. I didn't say I

did. I didn't say for a second that I was... Sounds like a relationship

I was in! I don't care one way or the other. It is funny that

Scotland thinks it can do it. Michelle? We have a few here.

"Independence for Scotland would be stupidity at the least." Alex says,

"Yes, it would be good for them, but bad news for everyone else in

the UK." OK. Where's Scott? I want to hear from Scott. What inspired

you to get online, start sending messages? For me, it is this kind

of idea that people seem to think they are against independence for

Scotland. I do think Scotland could cope on its own. I don't understand

why you would want to throw away at being at the top table of the

Security Council? We have done things in the UK. We should

continue that in the UK. What is gained by this? APPLAUSE. All the

successes we have had is because we have controlled those powers in the

Scottish Parliament. I don't buy this idea that Scotland has a place

at the top table of the Security Council. We don't have influence.

Scotland was against the Iraq War, two-thirds of our population.

Scotland was vehemently opposed to it yet our sons and daughters had

to fight. I agree, we have had a lot of success. Those successes

have been with the powers we have had in the Scottish Parliament. Why

shouldn't we control our economy? The referendum will be in two

years' time. Why so long? Was it a power grab? I'm asking, a party

that has one mandate, it gets in power and it doesn't call a

referendum. The mandate was in the second half of the Scottish

Parliament. I think the point that is made is whether you are for it,

or against it, I don't doubt those who are against it, we all want

what is best for Scotland. What I don't like is this argument that

Scotland can't survive on its own. I have �1 trillion of an oil assets

base... You know what the great tragedy is? One of the reasons why

it might be a good idea... I will pay for your bus fare... Quick,

guys. Scotland had an incredibly proud entrepreneur --

entrepreneurial history. Scott, does that answer your question?

answers my question. You said there were a lot of questions left to be

answered. We are not clear what an independent Scotland is going to be

like. There are a lot of questions. Let's try and get and hear from as

many people as we can. Milo, the reason we had so many entrepreneurs

back in those days is we were the first country to introduce free

education. APPLAUSE. So the first half... Just watch over the next

few years. Brilliant. Thank you. I'm sure a lot of people enjoyed

that. The thing is you were saying, Humza, a bit like Team GB is not

relevant, but for the moment, the best argument is we did so well in

the Olympics. No-one is telling us what it is going to be like. Was it

good for Britain to see everyone under the Union Flag? Yes. There is

a while to the referendum. You are pro Union? I haven't made up my

mind. Send a leaflet to that lady! Milo was suggesting we lost our

entrepreneurial spirit because of big left-wing governments. I would

suggest that is more to do with Westminster governments that have

managed to cling for decades. Scotland can, as Humza was saying,

we are 8.6% of the population, we raise 9.6% of the UK's taxes, but

we only get 9 ppbtd 3%. We can do it. -- 9.3%. We can do it. Thank

you very much. Humza made the point that Scotland has no influence at

the top table. It wasn't that long ago that the Prime Minister and the

Chancellor of the United Kingdom were both not just Scottish but

Scottish MPs elected by Scottish electors. Scotland does have a seat

at the top table. The Olympics have shown we are better together. Where

does Sir Chris Hoy train? He trains in Manchester as part of Great

Britain, not as a Scottish athlete. He is supported by UK sports.

Murray trains in Spain, that doesn't mean we should be part of

Spain! The lady in front of you? The question really is about being

patriotic, or are you thinking about the complexities of what is

going on in Scotland? People aren't discussing - we have not been told

what is going to happen with independence and it is about being

patriotic and that is not what it is about. Two quick points here?

I'm not Scottish, I believe in democracy. If the majority of a

country wants that, they should be given the opportunity to do it.

Yourself? I think that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds thould have the

right to vote in it. We don't -- should have the right to vote in it.

We don't know enough about it. This is the only chance we might be able

to see this in your lifetime. quick point from the gentleman at

the front? Well, sit more to do with the fact there are arguments

both sides. Scotland could make it alone. I'm British and Scottish.

You will be taking away a part of my identity. If you become an

independent state, you take away my identity as a Brit. Britain won't

exist any more. Of course it will. It won't. You want an independent

nation... Why should it be a question of your identity? You are

trying to argue away how I feel about being British. That is not

fair. What is it that makes you feel British? For some people it is

Team GB, for some it is watching EastEnders, for some it is X tack

factor. Why should that change? -- X Factor. Why should that change?

You have made your point. Michelle? We have a few points on Twitter.

Humza, you seem to be connecting with people at home. It is only

fitting that you have the final word. Thank you very much. Well, I

wanted to pick up on the point that 16 and 17-year-olds should be given

a voice. It is not fair that they should be able to fight in wars,

that they should pay for National Services but have no say in them.

So come on the young people. Thank you very much. That is almost it

for tonight. Thank you to the audience. You were wonderful. A

round of applause for the panel, everybody. APPLAUSE. And Shappi has

to run because her show starts in half an hour. Don't go just yet!

Our debate continues online. Our next show is live from Manchester.

Join us then. We will leave you with more of the Fringe, the

Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppet Theatre. This is their take on the

independence question. Good night. So Scotland separates from England,

what would we miss? Our fellow socks. A load of our socks are

English. The Argyll socks... That is Scottish! What about the Pringle