03/09/2014 The Referendum Debate

Welcome to the referendum debate. In just 15 days time, millions of

Scots will head to polling stations to cast their votes. Tonight, we are

in Aberdeen. On our panel, for the Scottish

National Party, a politician who is at the heart of the Yes campaign,

Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. For Labour, Jim Murphy,

who has been touring the country and getting the occasional egg thrown at

him. The former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, who now sits

in the house of lords as well as Holyrood, Annabel Goldie, and one of

the most prominent supporters of independence, Brian Souter. In the

interests of a good debate, our audience are evenly divided with

some who are still making up their minds at the front. Our audience

have submitted their questions and our panel have not seen them.

Welcome to Aberdeen. They call it the Granite city, and

the name suits Aberdeen's character as well as its style. The people

here took on the North Sea and won. First, it was wailing, fishing and

trade. Now the black gold. While arguments rage about how much

remains, Europe's oil capital is still making serious money. Aberdeen

is not flashy. It does not seek the limelight. But it is right now at

the heart of the referendum debate. So let's get right on with that

debate with our first question from Joanna Hardy.

Would an independent Scotland be less vulnerable to terrorism? Jim

Murphy? I do not think the threat from

terrorism is greater whether we are part of the United Kingdom or we are

independent. There are nations all over the world who are threatened by

a terror and horror which respects no border or boundary. Really, it is

about how do we keep ourselves strong and resilient? The investment

we have in our armed Forces and security service, that is crucial.

If I have a criticism it would be a mild one, they have to think about

how they would configure and Armed Forces say that the country stays

safe and secure. But this is an issue which should not divide us

left or right, Patriot or nationalist and we should do all

that we can to keep our country as strong as possible and ensure the

safety and integrity of our nation and our well-being.

Nicola Sturgeon, would an independent Scotland be less

vulnerable to the threat of terrorism? We should never assume

that. There should not be any complacency about the threat we face

from international terrorism. An independent Scotland would require

to be properly defended and properly protected against those threats. As

a continuing part of the British Isles, an independent Scotland, we

share an island with England and Wales and there would be a massive,

interest with other parts of the UK to continue to work together to

ensure our common defence and security. It is no secret that one

of the big disagreements my party has had with Jim's party, and I

agree about not making this political, but one of the big

disagreements was over the war in Iraq. I certainly hope that whatever

party was in government in an independent Scotland, we would be

respecters of international law at all times. My last point is to say

that quite a significant intervention in the independence

debate today has come from the recently retired UK Ambassador to

NATO, who has indicated that she will be voting Yes in the

referendum. She makes Frei clear that neither an independent Scotland

or the rest of the UK would be any less safe as a result of

independence. I think given her expertise, given her experience,

that is a voice we should listen to. The question was not would it be

more vulnerable but less vulnerable? Is in the logic of your position

that you are trying to distance yourself from the imperialist

British state that gets involved in wars in Iraq that it might be less

vulnerable? I have said is reasonably as possible but I

disagreed with the previous Labour government in terms of the war in

Iraq. I hope that an independent Scotland, as I hope all countries

respect international law, and send an example to the rest of the world.

I did say at the start of my answer, I don't think any reasonable

responsible politician in any country should never assume that we

are less vulnerable than any other country to international terrorism.

It is important that we stress that but also that we stress the

interests of Scotland and our partners across the British Isles

are working together to secure a common defence Security. Annabel

Goldie? May be surprisingly I'm going to agree with the last part of

Nicola's contribution. I agree that terrorism is a threat. It is a fact

of the age in which we live. I have to say, from my perspective, I do

think as part of the United Kingdom, and we are able to do two

things, we are able to sustain a meaningful defence capability. We

have the fourth biggest defence budget in the world. But we are also

able to secure very sophisticated intelligence operations, both

surveyors in gathering of data and information. That is not to say an

independent Scotland would not do its best to cooperate with the rest

of the UK and try and share data and information, I just think to be

honest, that is much more readily done if we are all within the

partnership of the UK and that is to me, one of the many attributes and

benefits we share by being in that partnership. Thank you very much. I

would love to hear from the audience. I will come to you in a

minute if you have your hands up. Brian Souter. Common sense tells me

we would be less vulnerable because you do not see the same acts of

terrorism committed with smaller countries. Doubtless our colonial

past makes us a target for some of the terrorists. I do agree however,

with Nicola, that no one is safe from terrorism. An independent

Scotland would have to be active with its own security forces and we

would have to prepare ourselves so we could defend ourselves from

terrorism. Is Britain to blame for terrorism? I do not think they are

to blame but my vision of an independent Scotland would be quite

different. I believe an independent Scotland would be active with

refugees in Gaza, with the Yazidi, with the Christian minority. Our

role would not be a colonial role where we were policemen, our role

would be where we are lining up with the compassionate folks and helping

with the charities. I think we would have a different role

internationally if we were independent. From the man with the

beard? Can I just point out that it was not only Westminster, it was not

only international law that they disobey that also the million people

who marched on London and the overwhelming majority of the people

of the UK. Thank you. Yes? I cannot see how breaking up the UK helps us

with the institutions across the world. The woman at the back? Surely

terrorism and its whole aspect is you are not supposed to see it

coming. If an independent Scotland took a more maternally stick view,

then they would be more vulnerable to that sort of attack because they

are going to attack the people they are already trying to get rid of

elsewhere. One more point. It is just with regards to the general

defence of Scotland. I find it a bit hypocritical to be told by the UK

government that we are being defended when the current cuts have

resulted in an Air Force Base covering an area from Shetland to

Leeming. The fact that we have no naval surface vessels based in

Scotland at all and we have no maritime reconnaissance aircraft in

the UK at all. Jim Murphy, they are spending billions on Trident. This

issue is too complicated, too intricate to reduce it to which

countries were involved in the Iraq war or the Afghanistan conflict.

There were nations which were involved in Iraq and were not,

nations which were involved in Afghanistan and were not which are

subject to this horrible terror which is indiscriminate. Can we

address this point? The specific point about the priorities of

defence at UK government level, money being spent on Trident and not

on maritime aircraft. I want a world free of all nuclear weapons. This

technology has been invented. We cannot un-invented it. We cannot put

it back in the box. The idea that people who are against all nuclear

weapons, of course they are members of the MDM that is entirely noble,

but the idea that we vote for independence and we move our nuclear

deterrent a few miles down the M6 and stay in the club called NATO has

no deep principles about it whatsoever. Let's try and get rid of

nuclear warheads all across the planet. The last Labour government

reduced the number of warheads more than any other nation on earth and

that has to continue. I know this is a very expensive deterrent. But in a

world where India and Pakistan are facing off against each other across

a nuclear divide, where Iran is trying to get the nuclear bomb,

where North Korea is trying to get the nuclear bomb, I do not want to

be in a world where we unilaterally give up on our deterrent when so

many other countries are trying to acquire it.

APPLAUSE Nicola Sturgeon? I will put my cards

on the table. I am against nuclear weapons in principle. I would have

more sympathy with Jim's point on Trident if Westminster were in the

business of trying to negotiate Trident away. But that is not the

case. Westminster are in the business of spending money to

replace Trident and put a new generation of Trident on the Clyde.

I agree wholeheartedly that we do not want to see countries like Iran

and North Korea develop nuclear weapons of their own. I just happen

to think that countries like the UK would have more credibility in

saying to other countries, don't have nuclear weapons, if they

weren't in the business of putting new nuclear weapons in. Just to

bring that back to the question, Annabel Goldie, how do nuclear

weapons make Scotland safer from terrorism, for example? I think it

is difficult to prove a deterrent is a deterrent. Trident is a deterrent.

All I can tell you is in the last six decades, thankfully, we have not

seen nuclear conflict. I totally agree with the concept that we want

to try and reduce the presence of nuclear weaponry worldwide. I want

to see that happening. I can tell you now that you do not do that from

a position of weakness. It was interesting to watch the attitude of

democratic powers when Iran was trying to develop a nuclear

facility. Thankfully, that was constrained. It was constrained on

the back of diplomatic argument, constrained on the back of knowledge

that countries with nuclear powers are saying to others, do not let

this escalate, do not expand this, we are all trying to work towards a

position where international agreement, we can see multilateral

disarmament. I do not see how you can possibly achieve that, by

saying, take Trident, chuck it over the border and that makes Scotland a

safer place. That is utterly inane, ladies and gentlemen. How do

spending ?100 billion on new nuclear weapons equate to disarmament,

whether that is multilateral or unilateral? The choice we have here

and a couple of weeks is do we want to be tied into ?100 billion

expenditure on nuclear weapons, or do you want to take the ability not

to do that in Scotland, so we can invest that money in better things,

childcare, better public services... There is so much to get

through, we could talk about that all night. Let's take our next

question. Would taxes rise in an independent Scotland? There is no

requirement for Scotland becoming independent for taxes to rise. Would

they? My party has no plans to increase taxes. Governments will

take decisions on taxation in budgets on an annual basis,

depending on the prevailing circumstances in the economy but the

reason I can say confidently that taxes do not need to go up, is we

are not subsidised in Scotland. All of the public services that we

enjoy, whether that is our National Health Service, pensions or any

other service that are provided, they are paid for by you and I. It

is just that right now we pay the taxes. That money goes to London.

London decides how much of it comes back to Scotland. They spend some of

it on nuclear weapons. If we were independent, we keep the taxes

here. We decide the priorities for the spending of our own resources.

Scotland contributed huge amount in income tax, taxes on business, and

oil. It's about ?53 billion a year. Huge sum of money. You know what? We

get more the matter back. 65 billion. They are the independent

figures, no political party's figures. ?12 billion of additional

investment here in Scotland. To break that down, ?1200 extra for

every adult in Scotland, on public services than the UK average. Held

on a minute. It's quite important. ?1200 extra. The question is, where

is this money coming from? Scotland is 8.3% of the UK population. If the

problem here not that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of UK, but

it's, like the UK, is subsidised by debt? We contribute 9.1 and get back

9.3. ?1200 more spent on public services in Scotland so someone has

to pay these bills. What we have told by the SNP and the Yes

campaign, everything will be free. They're also saying taxes will be

lower. The problem with Brian and his friends, the corporation tax

will be lower. You cannot build a socialist utopia in an independent

Scotland on tax rates lower than George Osborne would even promise in

a Tory Britain. It's unachievable. The figures don't add up. Would they

rise? Someone will have to pay these bills. Setting up a separate Army,

navy, air force, new tax system, a new pension system, someone has to

pay the costs of independence and separation and have no idea what the

cost is. Nicola and her friends won't tell us the full forecast. O.

How much will it cost? It's just amazing. These numbers fly around

all over the place. We've really got to ask the question, who do you

trust about these numbers? Let me tell you, I really don't trust where

the source of a lot of these numbers and very interesting because do you

trust Westminster and the numbers they are giving us, because this is

the same Westminster that use the official secrets act to cover up the

McCrone report in 1979? APPLAUSE

. A report which said Scotland would

be a very wealthy country but they kept it secret for 30 years. Brian

Souter, I'm sorry, bollard on either side particular disputes these

figures. The office for National statistics figures, some of them

collected by the Scottish Government. Who are you saying is

hiding things here? A lot of these numbers are about how much oil will

be produced. We're all tired of hearing about this to from numbers

and Nicola's point is right. The reason there are differences, we are

borrowing enormous numbers of debt but if you forecast for the numbers

for an independent Scotland, without debt, we are in surplus every year

going forward. If you go back 30 years, we have been in surplus over

the 30 year period. So you are reneging on the debt? Scotland

should renege on the debt? I'm making the point,

balance the budget. The budget has been set out going forward. We have

said when we get to break even. It's all in the white Paper going

forward. Annabel Goldie. Listening to Brian's logic is like me saying

I've spent my whole life wanting to be a size 12. I'm still waiting to

achieve that. Because when Brian talks about the figures, there are

some very important figures, not least in the White Paper. Because

one page of the White Paper is devoted to an illustration of what

the finances of the first year of independence might be like. The

surprising thing was not by the budget deficit was brought out, we

expected that. The surprising thing was how small the budget deficit

was. And then it emerged that the oil revenues had been generously

overestimated and expenditure had been ambitiously underestimated. So

your budget deficit was smaller. John Swinney recognised something

had to be done. He brought it amended oil revenue figures two or

three months ago. And in these he said, OK comments that of my first

year of independence revenues between 6.8 and 7.9, the first year

will be ?6.9 billion. Then ?7.3 billion. Unfortunately, for him, an

adviser to the Scottish Government said no, my estimate is ?2 billion

less than that and that is why, to go back to the question, about what

awaits us in an independent Scotland, and will taxes go up?

Nicola and Brian can't tell you the cars... Nicola, you don't know. We

know there will be a budget deficit. We don't know what the currency will

be. We know it's going to be bigger than the percentage of GDP than the

rest of the UK. We know there's going to be a black hole. The

Institute for Fiscal Studies estimate of ?6 billion blackout and

said it that means taxes going or cutting expenditure. And public

services. You are right to be worried, Kirsty. I want to take a

point from the audience. A man with a yellow LAN yard around his neck.

Under SNP in Scotland, SNP manages to pack everything through the block

grant from the Barnett formula so that's fine, but I can't take any

facts about figures from Better Together because they put in the

worst financial mess we've seen since the end of the Second World

War. Thank you. The man right on the edge. The blue shirt. I would like

to make the point, it's been so long ago that oil was $10 a barrel and of

the large part of a Scottish revenue is derived from oil, what happens to

the taxation system, and what will be the first tax which arises when

oil crashes again? I just want to make point but don't think it's

necessarily a bad thing taxes go up about making sure people understand

why they're going up and what it's being spent on and relating that

things like public services and the deficit. You think it should go up

to fund changes? You can't get anything for free for 30 get what

you pay for some as long as people have a good understanding of what

that tax would be used for some it's not necessarily a bad thing. The SNP

has indicated there expect one education, University education,

being free but this influx of English students, there would be a

need for more money to cover that, so surely taxes would have to rise

to cover things like that? Let's not get into the detail of education

policy but I do come back to that. I wanted to pick up appointed Jim

made. Jim said public spending in Scotland is ?1200 higher per head

than across the rest of the UK. He is right about that. In the year he

took that figure, I guess is 2011-12, the tax generated per head

in Scotland was ?1700 higher than the rest of the UK. The No campaign

are serial misleader from a talk about finances. This Better

Together... This Better Together leaflet tries to tell us about an

independent Scotland would be poorer than Pakistan. And why are they

seriously misleading? Because they know if they tell you the truth,

that Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world,

the 14th richest country in the world, you would start asking why

are we putting up with rising child poverty? Rising demand for food

banks? Why are we putting up with cuts from the Tory Government that

we did not vote for? And they know that you would conclude it was

actually better to take control of our own vast resources than have

them controlled by a Tory Government we didn't vote for. Jim Murphy. The

woman with glasses. An independent Scotland proposed design of oil fund

but surely to set the oil fund for the setup costs and running costs,

will taxes not be increased? The man right in the middle with a blue

shirt. We have lots of oil or lots and lots of oil? Isn't it about how

we spend the money than how much we have? Jim Murphy. First of all, for

the SNP's figures, they don't come close to adding up in the White

Paper. They have the oil barrel price being $113. It's only been

that high for four months in 2008. Nicola's point about poverty and

food banks, I go to food banks in Liverpool, and hunger and poverty

recognises no nationality. Whether Labour Government was in reducing

the national minimum wage, the dignity of a national minimum wage,

not one single SNP MP turned up to vote to introduce the legislation

but yet, when Labour tries to introduce a national living wage, in

the Scottish Parliament, every single SNP MSP turned up to vote

that down. Spare us the lectures about social lectures. Let her

speak. And as for this idea that the SNP have been open and honest, they

have had a decade as a party, seven years as a Government, and two years

in this campaign, and they still can't tell us what currency we are

going to be using. CROWD BOOS

The answer to that question is the pound but back to the living wage.

The reason the Scottish Government couldn't introduce a living wage to

the procurement bail was because European law says a lot like to have

a living wage mandated that is higher than your minimum wage. We

don't control the minimum wage in Scotland. If we were independent, we

would control the minimum wage and ensure the minimum wage rose at

least in line with inflation, unlike under the Westminster parties, where

it has fallen behind the cost of living for them may be over time, we

could get the minimum weight up to the level of the living wage as well

for that we need the powers to do it first. -- minimum wage. Annabel

Goldie. Very quickly. You sound more like you kept on the SNP. It's an

absolute fiction. The First Minister Wales has said an independent

Scotland would not be able to share a currency with Wales at Scotland

becomes independent. It's not about Scotland versus England but about

control of your economy, and ability to make your own decisions in your

own country. The idea we be independent, keep the pound, and

rely on the Bank of England, that would allow a foreign bank in a

foreign country to set your mortgage rates, your car loan rate, your

interest rates, what is the logic of that? OK, there's four on the panel

so let's take small contributions on the outside. Brian Souter. We are

getting the same batch of all the time from Better Together and we

have to say, -- same rhetoric. It does not pass the comment sense

test. I travelled in three different countries and did not need a

passport for that you can travel right across Europe using the same

currency. It's ridiculous logic. We are seeing through the

scaremongering and by the way, it's not just senior Cabinet members who

are saying of course there will be a currency union. I backbenchers at

Westminster and they all say the same thing for the same thing before

that there will be a currency union. Who? Good friends and I cannot

disclose them. LAUGHTER

From which parties? Conservatives. How many? I have spoken to at least

one. One, then. So one Tory has spoken. I'm just going to say,

Nicola was talking about a very worthy aspiration and I understand

that and she says we are believers. Kirsty, we need the money.

Everything Nicola wants costs money. And going back to your

questions about the likely stability of the economy of an independent

Scotland, through all the facts we've been able to garner, from the

White Paper, look at page 75, that's the starting point. We know that

there's going to be ongoing budget deficit. Alex Salmond had the sense

to admit they would be ongoing budget deficits but said we would

work our way out of that by expanding the workforce. We would

rely on immigration to expand the workforce and contributor

productivity but someone else calculated you would need to have a

net migration of 24,000 people coming in and staying every year for

a period of 20 years, ladies and gentlemen. Population the size of

Edinburgh. That will take time to address this budget deficit. In the

interim, either public expenditure will be cut taxes will go up. I

would like to ask Kirsty, who originally asked this question, what

she makes of this? It seems like a hundred years ago now. What you

think? I don't mind of taxes rise because I know they're going back

into the country I vote for. So I went mind. You will vote yes? Yes.

But you would be happy to see taxes rise? Do you think will? That's what

my question is for. Do you think you got anywhere? Not really. A waste of

time. The next question then. Marjorie Johnson. Just before that,

to remind people, you can join tonight 's debate on twitter. You

can text as all e-mail us. And the BBC News website. Does the risk of a

strengthened UKIP presence in Westminster pose more of a risk than

independence? At the end of the day, Scotland are elected UKIP MSP,

remember, it depends on the voters. There are many voters across the UK

who do not support UKIP, do not support what it stands for, don't

feel it is a party of any influence and don't feel it is able to deliver

anything. I think the greatest threat to Scotland is the

uncertainty currently being caused by the prospect of independence. And

uncertainty we saw reflected in the money markets with the pound's value

slipping. That is not politicians at work, that is money markets at work.

I think there is a real difficulty for us. I think there is a real

difficulty if we vote for separation and independence. I think there is

risk, there is uncertainty and I just feel we do not have to take

that risk on. We do not have to. We know what we have got. We have got a

good setup with a partnership with the UK. Let's keep it. Let's not

take on unnecessary risk. Brian Souter, are you worried about UKIP?

I do not lay awake at night worrying about UKIP, I have to say that. But

I think there is a lesson about UKIP that the main parties have to sit up

and pay attention to. I think the reason why UKIP are doing so well in

England is there is complete disillusionment with Westminster.

There are big issues about integrity, scandals and sex abuse

scandals. One thing that is interesting about this debate is a

lot of people who have not been engaged up until now, and I spoke to

someone started a... Just one person? She is Susan and a cleaner.

She said I have not voted for 30 years but I am voting this time

because this time my vote can make a difference.

APPLAUSE Does the prospect of a strengthened

presence at Westminster? Last week the UK Prime Minister was asked a

simple question, what devolved powers would be given to Scotland

and when, he said yes and soon, what is certain about that? Can we stay

on UKIP for the minute? I would like to remind us all of the warnings we

received at the start of this referendum period, when we were told

that all the uncertainty that would be created by that would drive

businesses out and would have a negative effect on the economy.

Anybody living in Aberdeen cannot fail to notice the amount of

building that is going on throughout the city and the number of large

businesses which are investing here and the number of large headquarters

which are based in Aberdeen. And is UKIP concerning you, the fact that

the UK might be heading for the UK union -- European Union exit?

Absolutely. I dispute the point that youth are not involved. I disagree

with this. A lot of the youths that do not have an interest in politics,

it is because there mother or father has mass political apathy. The

reason for that is because the political apathy is coming from

politics not being as accessible as it should be, for perhaps lower

class, working class people who have not studied a degree at University

or even studied after-school or stayed the whole time in school?

Thank you Ray much for the point. Let's come back to not just UKIP but

Europe in general. I do not think we should take the risk of another Tory

government that we did not vote for. Even that presents a real risk to

Scotland was that future in Europe. We could find ourselves taken out of

Europe. That is a big enough risk. When you add UKIP into that, frankly

it becomes pretty terrifying. I do not want a Tory UKIP government

running my country. That is a real prospect. The key democratic

argument for Scotland being independent is this one. If we are

independent, we decide who governs us. If we are not independent, we

continue to be at the mercy of Howard general elections across the

UK go. Every single election in my lifetime has been won by Labour but

for more than half my life we have had Tory government Centauri prime

ministers. That is not democratic. Today we have seen Ian Lang, Malcolm

Rifkind and Michael Forsyth telling us to vote No. They are tenants of

Margaret Thatcher. They gave us the poll tax. They are a living

embodiment of the reason to vote Yes. Annabel Goldie. As I saw from

the case of the yes campaign you are given a lot of rhetoric. Since the

Second World War that have been 18 governments are elected at

Westminster. Out of these 18, on 13 occasions, Scotland has got the

government she voted for. On only 11 occasions has the South of England

got the government they voted for. Nicola is implying that somehow

Scotland has been short-changed and that is why we need out of the UK.

Scotland and England have been short-changed. My point is democracy

means sometimes you will get the government you want and sometimes

you will not. It is not a reason to reject a strong partnership. Jim

Murphy. Nicola and the SNP can rightly be mown Margaret Thatcher

coming to power but older viewers will remember how Margaret Thatcher

came to power. It was the SMP siding with the Tories that brought Mrs

Thatcher to power. The lady at the front, I am doing a debate with

12,000 young people next week in Glasgow. I think to get 12,000

youngsters to something which is not a concert but a political debate,

shows that politics is alive and well. We were out in Glasgow at a

pizza restaurant. There was a hen do next to us. They were all drinking

tequilas and they were well worn. They were debating the merits of a

currency union. They agreed to get drunk rather than come to an

agreement that shows how powerful this debate has been. On the point

about UKIP, we should not pretend that Scotland is the most welcoming

nation on earth. We should not pretend. The fact is that London did

not vote for a UKIP MEP but Scotland did. The fact that Scotland has been

stained through the generations from occasional racism and the

sectarianism that scarred our soul, we should not pretend the country,

unfortunately the country is sometimes still like that, but the

question is should Scotland be worried about it? I know who should

be worried about UKIP. That is David Cameron. The Tories are in meltdown

yet again over Europe. That highlights that David Cameron is

temporary. He can be gone in a few short months. Independence is

forever. Let's vote to stay in the UK this month and let's vote to kick

David Cameron out next year. Brian Souter. I agree with Jim that we are

enjoying the debate. Can I just remind everyone that you folks did

not want us to have this debate in the first place.

APPLAUSE This is about bringing democracy

closer to the people. If we do get a guest vote, even people by Jim will

be voted into the Scottish Parliament -- if we do get a Yes

vote. Let's take a point from the man in green. I would like to ask

Nicola Sturgeon how important she feels a written constitution would

be in an independent Scotland? Let's try and stick to the topic. Yes? I

really want to comment on always getting what you vote for. Jim

Murphy made it clear, 10% of the Scottish population voted for UKIP.

37% voted for either the Tories or UKIP in the last election. Whatever

constituency you are, you will always have to make some

compromise, you will always lose elections, you will always win

elections. If I had a vote in my own house, I would not normally win it!

If you cut any constituency small enough you will get what you vote

for. I think the lady across here said it is OK, I will pay more tax

because I know what I vote for will be the party in power. No, it will

not. It will be one of the other parties in power. And can I also

say... Quickly. Scotland is 10% of the UK electorate. It would be 1% of

the European electorate. If you think you are going to get more

power from 1% of the European electorate or 10% of the UK

electorate. Thank you. Annabel mentions the south-east of England

not getting who they vote for, Jim mentioned London. Are you suggesting

that Scotland is a parable -- come parable to these areas. Scotland is

a country. These are areas of the country. That is a fair point, isn't

there a difference? It is in the context of the partnership of the

United Kingdom. Some of the audience reject that partnership and find no

merit in it. I respect that view. But I am pointing out it is rather a

bogus argument to say trite Lee on every occasion, we do not get the

governments we vote for. I am pointing out that if you accept the

partnership as merit and you believe the partnership should continue,

sometimes you will get the party you want, sometimes you will not, that

is democracy. Jim says vote No and then vote to kick out David Cameron,

the truth is, every single one of us could vote Labour but we would still

not get a Labour government if England voted Tory. My second point

is to agree with Brian. I would love to see Jim in the Scottish

Parliament, I think he is a quality politician. I have never voted

Labour so I cannot attend my views are the same as the Scottish Labour

Party. If I was a Labour supporter, I would see a real merit in Scotland

being independent and it is a way to reclaim my party. People like Jim

would come back and the Scottish Labour Party get to be true to its

own ideals, not looking over its shoulder at Westminster. If you are

a Labour supporter, perhaps the best future for your own party is to vote

Yes. People are offering you all sorts of things. I have been offered

everyone's job apart from yours! Give it time. This point about

Labour politics and Labour values and Labour vision, the Labour Party

is formed with a sense of solidarity. The idea that we are

stronger together and we would be weaker apart. I believe in trade

unions that work. The trade union movement founded the Labour Party.

Joining a trade union at work can make you better paid, make you

safer, make you more influential. I believe in a social union on these

islands. I do not believe in the politics of cultural conceit. The

idea that changing your nationality solves all of your problems.

Changing your passport has never put a penny in the pocket of a poor

person anywhere in the world. I care as much about a family who are

hungry, a family who are out of work, whether in Aberdeen, Liverpool

or Glasgow. I do not believe in the sense of social solidarity that is

an expression of that solidarity that you walk away and say you are

on your own. Let's work to change our whole country, these islands.

Let's make a fairer nation. Let's give rid of the Tories into the

bargain. Let's not take the enormous risk with the signs of independence

being promised by Nicola and the SNP. Thank you. Let's take another

question. What is better for higher education, independence or the

union? What is better for higher education, independence or staying

in the union? I think there is a straightforward answer to that. If

you want to continue with free education then you need to vote for

independence. It is really elementary. Our vision for a new

Scotland is so different from what is happening in the Westminster

Parliament. If you look at it over the last 35 years, we have pumped

our oil revenues to Westminster in this gets together concept. What

have we got out of this deal in return? We have ended up with the

poll tax, the bedroom tax, we have ended up with a nuclear arsenal

outside our biggest city. It does not seem like a big deal for me. I

think the only way to sustain free education is to pull the levers that

we have ourselves, take control, take the levers of the economy that

we need to do this. It is interesting this idea of what is

your vision for Scotland, how are we going to deliver this and Annabel's

point about how we will pay for this. The reason why there is a 3%

corporation tax is not to help rich people, it is to create 30,000 jobs

and attract a whole lot of companies to locate in Scotland because that

is good for us. Our vision is we want to create a dynamic economy

where entrepreneurs can operate and generate wealth in Scotland and then

we want to distribute that wealth and deal with the social justice

issues and take the 200,000 children we have in poverty. If you want to

make these decisions, if you sign up to that vision, you will never

fulfil it as long as we are stuck in the Westminster system.

APPLAUSE The question is whether independence

or staying in the UK is better for higher education. Isn't education

already devolved to Scotland so we have already got that. We do not

need to be an independent Scotland to have control over our education.

APPLAUSE OK, we will take a couple more. The

man in the second row back. Nicola, can you guarantee that higher

education would be free in an independent Scotland? We will come

to that in a minute. There is a man at the back. Just listening to Brian

Souter, I went to school in the 60s is though, the first in my family to

go university, in my street, 20 council houses. Kids went to

university for the first time. My dad died, I got a grant, there were

no student loans and the lady down there is correct. Brian Souter,

education has been devolved in Scotland. There will not be any

different between being devolved and independent but what will happen

under independence is we will have to fund the English students and

there will be big cuts in grants if you listen to Professor Pennington

speaking. Directly to the gentleman who was just spoken, education

policy is devolved, and that's why we have got free education in

Scotland but we don't control the size of our budget and it's been cut

by 7% over the last few years. George Osborne has told us, ?25

billion more cuts coming so if we want to protect the things that

really matter to us, including free education, then we need to control

the budget and we will only get that with independence. I get quite

passionate, as I know a lot of people do when I talk about free

education, because it's very personal for me. I grew up in a

working-class family, with the privilege of a university education

and I know if I had to pay tuition fees, I wouldn't have been able to

go to university, not because my parents were not done anything in

their power to send me but it would have been impossible and I feel so

strongly that, having had that privilege as a politician now, and

able to sit here partly because about free education, I have no

right to pull that ladder of opportunity up behind me and I will

never be part of anything in politics which takes that away. You

was here, in reference to this, if you become independent, we will have

to give free education to students coming from England, I don't want to

charge anybody to go to university wherever they come from, but we have

to do that now and we would have to continue to do it because

Westminster has imposed sky-high tuition fees and the rest of the UK.

If only 10% of students from England came to Scotland to take advantage

of free education, it would take 80% of our places. The issue of European

law has been raised. You can make an objective justification to justify

something that would otherwise against European law and that's what

we will do for the reasons I have just set out. That's why I can say

to you if my party is in Government we will always protect free

education because it's one of the most important thing is any

Government can ever do. Jim Murphy. Coming directly to the question

there, we have still got far too much inequality in our country. Here

in Scotland, under devolution, the fact is there's too many families

who still struggle, those who go out to work and still struggle, but

what's most important journey anyone ever makes a life? It's from the

labour ward in which you were born to your first home. The Kurds that

determine of class, that short journey is such a remarkable

influence on your diet, education, your earnings, where you study.

Surely we want a world where people don't inherit that sense of

emotional and material poverty? How do you create a more just society?

We all want a system where, no matter where you are born, you can

progress in life equally, but when we are being offered a set of

economic 's that's so based on oil, oil revenue fell by over ?4 billion

in just one year, there's no point brewing, ladies and gentlemen, it's

a fact. It felt by ?4 billion in one year -- brewing. That's the entire

Scottish schools budget. -- brewing. We have devolution already. We can

have free tuition fees in Scotland already. The best of both worlds,

strong Scottish Parliament without having to leave the UK. The man in

blue. Nicola just promised us that we would not see rises in tuition

fees at all. In Scotland. Can you make the same promise for us if we

were to stick with devolution? In one word. Each political party will

say in the next Scottish election what their priorities will be. What

does your party say? We will set out our manifesto in the next election.

This is much more important than one manifesto or one election. I want to

hear more on this. The woman in the blue and white top. Nicola, you are

saying, in under your block, English students would come here for

education, but will implement within EU law, will involve the rest of the

EU countries coming into this country to generate income? Taking a

part-time labour. If your going to charge the English, don't the charge

everybody else? We are not blocking anyone. We want English students to

study here. But we have to protect places for our own students. Most

European countries don't charge the tuition fees they charge in England.

In Germany, they are getting rid of them. This is about a policy imposed

on us because of Westminster decisions. I thought was very

telling that Jim could not give you a guarantee, even a Labour

Government in a devolved parliament, would not introduce tuition fees. If

I was a young person right now, that would worry me greatly so I hope

everybody heard that. The woman at the back. They say it's all about

how we're going to pay through everything like education. If we are

in charge of our economy, all the revenues, we can make all the

decisions about how we spend money in Scotland. We don't have to spend

it on Trident. We can have free education and a good NHS. Thank you.

We're talking about education and higher education is not just about

teaching but research done to promote that teaching. There's been

a lot of conversation about how potentially there could be a funding

gap in case the UK research Council stops funding Scottish university

research. Does the SNP have a plan B in case that happens? We need to

come to Annabel Goldie. The original question was about free education

but what is higher education going to face through independence or

remaining in the UK? This young gentleman has raised an important

point because we know at the moment, we're getting from UK research, 13%

of these monies, higher than our population share would merit. I know

university principals who regard that as very important and

significant. I also know that within academia, there is concern about the

viability of our continued funding of higher education. Nicola says Jim

doesn't have a policy that these are devolved issues, nothing to do with

constitutional change. When we have a Scottish Parliament election

begins at the state policies, make your own mind up, and vote the

parties you want and ignore the ones you don't want. On the question of

funding, I wrote to the parties to find another position on is and I'm

afraid what Annabel Goldie has said does not agree with the reply I got

from the Conservative Party budget. In the UK, we have the lowest

percentage GDP investment directly in scientific research from the

Government of any developed country. That's quite shocking. Thank you. We

do well out of UK research funding because the summer the best

researchers doing the best research, and that's going to change. It's

about a third of research funding which comes from the UK research

Council. The principle Robert Gordon University who wrote an article in

the Guardian yesterday, he stated that the independence was a threat

to research funding. He is presumably one of the expert you're

talking about. That is his view and I think that counts for a lot. You

literally have ten seconds, Jim Murphy.

APPLAUSE This is wishful thinking.

The idea the rest of the UK would be a foreign country to Scotland and

will fund research in an independent Scotland is fanciful. It out of the

same job at the vile made within two to build warships on the River

Clyde. Its entire wishful thinking. We can't but livelihoods, the

funding of universities or shipbuilding jobs at risk because

the SNP tell you it's all going to be OK on the right. Let's not worry.

Thank you all very much. I'm afraid that's all we have got time for. Our

final programme will be in Stirling on the 14th, the last Sunday before

the referendum. Our panel will include Elaine Smith, and labour

Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Ickes and amongst other. My thanks

to our panel and our audience and from the music Hall in Aberdeen,

good night.