26/08/2014 The Referendum Debate

Welcome to the Referendum Debate. The postal ballots are being sent

out, decision day is approaching, and tonight we are in Edinburgh.

On our panel here we have Finance Secretary John Swinney of the

Scottish National Party, Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont, the

formerly of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy, and the Scotsman

columnist Joyce McMillan. In the interest of a goods debate, our

audience are divided between supporters of independence on one

side, opponents of the other, plus some who are undecided in the

middle. Our audience have submitted their questions, and our panel have

not seen them. Welcome to Leith Academy. By Mike Edinburgh, wrote

Ian Rankin, is a city the size of a town with a village mentality. This

is a place with its arms open to the world. The city's population doubles

in August as the festival explodes into life, giving it an

international reputation for the arts. Over the centuries, Edinburgh

has also played a leading role in the flowering of philosophy, science

and economic. There was more than one reason it was nicknamed the

Athens of the North. Now it is to Scotland's devolved parliament, the

first to city of Florence for three centuries, and also home to

Britain's largest financial centre out of London. -- the first to sit

here for three centuries. Let's get on with the debate and take our

first question, which comes from Lauren McGovern. I'd like to ask if

the SNP are misleading the public about the NHS. John Swinney. No. The

National Health Service in Scotland is a devolved responsibility, it is

in operational control of the Scottish Government, and we are able

to take the National Health Service in a different direction to that

south of the border, but what we are not in control is the total size the

budget of Scotland, because that is determined by the changes that are

made to public expenditure in the United Kingdom. So, for example, if

the UK budget and public services. ?100, it will fall in Scotland by

?10, and as a consequence that spending squeeze will be felt in

Scotland, so over the course of this spending period we will wrestle with

a 7.2% real terms reduction in our budget, so our resources for public

services are falling, and that will inevitably put pressure on the

health service. So we may, in Scotland, have a policy decision

that we do not want to privatise the health service in Scotland, but the

consequences of privatisation of the health service south of the border

will be felt in the impact on the budget in Scotland, and that is why

this is such an important issue to be secured and settled by a yes vote

in the referendum. CHEERING AND APPLAUSE

Well, first of all, John is correct, and I will acknowledge, and it is a

good thing, that the National Health Service in terms of policy is a

wholly devolved matter, so how we run our health service is up to the

people we elect, and that means that a different policy is being pursued

in Scotland than it is south of the border, and that is fine. In terms

of the funding, but point, since this government came into power on a

UK bases, National Health Service expenditure has been ringfenced. And

secondly, if you were to constrain it, and that is a decision for a

future general election, if you were to constrain it, you would only be

constraining the rate of growth armour because everybody knows,

everybody except that the rate of inflation within the health service

is always higher by definition than it is within that of the economy as

a whole. So when John Ponce to the worry -- when John points to the

worry, it has been portrayed by some that if you were to vote no in this

referendum, you would essentially be an accomplice to finishing off the

health service in Scotland, utter rubbish, an insult. If you do want

to put the share of growth or reduction which Scotland enjoyed at

the moment based on UK expenditure, there is an easy way to do that.

That is to vote yes, to get independence, because then there is

no Barnett formula from the day after we are independent, and this

whole argument becomes redundant, a nonsense. John Swinney, you are

insulting people's intelligence. I know Charles is a Liberal Democrat,

but in England and Wales they are making the same point, that there is

a threat to the NHS because of the policy decisions that have been

taken by the UK Government in privatising the health service south

of the border, which has financial obligations for the Scottish

Government. It has been felt in Wales already, and they are up in

arms about the direction of policy, that is the real danger we are

facing. Please contribute but to your hands up, I will come to you in

a minute. But first, Johann Lamont, your party's position south of the

border, Andy Burnham has said NHS privatisation is being forced

through at a pace and scale, five more years of the same would push

the NHS off the cliff edge. Which is why a Labour government will ensure

there will not be privatisation of the NHS in England, and indeed all

of the figures show that in Wales, Northern Ireland, England, as in

Scotland, people believe the NHS is a precious thing, and it is

dishonest of the SNP to say, all of a sudden, this is so important. Not

mentioned in the white paper, not mentioned in the constitution when

they unveiled it, not in the first debate three weeks ago. This is

desperate stuff, because the health service cannot be privatised in

Scotland. It is not under threat of privatisation, but it is essential

we make sure it is properly funded. That is not about the constitution,

that is about politics and the choice we make, and because we

created the Scottish Parliament with control over the health service,

regardless of what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom, we can

protect the health service. The real threat to the health service, if you

listen to what many people who care deeply about the health service are

saying, how do you deliver a health service that we can be proud of with

a ?6 billion gap in funding that will because today one of

independence? Thank you. APPLAUSE

The blonde woman in the middle, yes. I just wanted to ask, if the yes

campaign are lying, Unison also lying? The thousands of people

marching from Jarrow line? Are the charities... They are concerned at

the direction of travel in the rest of the United Kingdom, but the fact

of the matter is that people in the United Kingdom want a publicly

funded health service, that is what it shows, and if the Tories go to

the next election saying they will privatise the health service, that

will make sure there will be a Labour government, that is a fact.

You see, the point that cannot be avoided here is the implication...

The people marching from Jarrow are all highlighting the dangers of the

direction of travel in England, and as a consequence of that, it will

flow through into the funding arrangements of the Scottish

Parliament as sure as night follows day, and we have to stop that

happening if we are to be successful. Joyce McMillan. There is

a deeper issue behind this question of what is happening to the NHS in

England, a question of trust and democracy. You may recall the 2010

general election when both parties which are now in government in

Westminster had in their manifestoes that they would not conduct any more

top-down reforms of the NHS, and yet within 18 months they had enacted a

reform which every, I think, independent commentator agrees that

leads to the break-up and emergence of a largely privatised NHS. Why did

that happen? If you think about why that happens, then you begin to get

close to some of the issues of trust, of excessive lobbying, of

influence-peddling, and of politicians not sticking to the

policies that they put to the electorate because of pressures from

wealthy and influential people, which are among the reasons why

people have ceased to trust Westminster government in the way

that they used to. And I think... APPLAUSE

We will take a point from the woman in blue in the middle, yes. Is it

not the case that the NHS has come to the fore in the yes campaign

because of the problems they were having with the currency issues? We

will come to the woman in the front row. I think you have to look at

what is happening. Already we are being told by Andy Burnham, he is

your health secretary, saying it is only a matter of time before

ordinary people are going to have to start paying a monthly tariff to see

their GP. That is privatisation by the back door if ever was.

CHEERING AND APPLAUSE The Labour Party does not have to

defend what is being done to the health service, we have to stop what

is being done to the health service, you can vote for that in 2015. These

goddess health service was described by the leader of Scottish doctors as

a five-year car crash. -- the Scottish health service. We have

targets that are not being met, pressures right now, and the

proposal being put forward by the SNP is to take ?6 billion out of our

funding. We will have a worse position for our health service than

before, and it is profoundly misleading, all of a sudden at this

late stage, to be scaremongering around the question of

privatisation. I heard the First Minister yesterday acknowledging

that it was not under threat of privatisation, it is profoundly

unfair to scaremonger amongst people who rely on the health service in

the way that they do. We will take a couple of points. Yes. My wife is a

senior charge nurse in the NHS, she runs six wards. She is not concerned

about what might happen and in England at some point in the future,

she is concerned about and stabbing on her ward, bed blocking, of

occupancy rates. -- understaffing. She is concerned about the impact on

health, welfare and education, that is what is at risk. I would like to

point out that the unions are actually saying that Scotland's NHS

is under threat. When you say that there is and the stabbing, we have

seen the problems that quantitative easing the Barnett formula causes in

the police force. -- understaffing. This will happen in the NHS, and we

will need to cut corners elsewhere. Charles Kennedy, you opposed that

policy. Very much so! Look, the policy decision, the SNP government

cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, we control policy and

just worry about the money. The policy of the police in Scotland was

to have a national, centralised police force. Mrs Thatcher would not

have dared do that, Alex Salmond did, and that is not a valid

comparison at all, not at all. I would like to go back to Lauren

McGovern, who asked the question originally, are the SNP trying to

mislead the public over the NHS? You work in the NHS, is that right?

Yeah, I work at a local hospital, and what concerns me is that in 2011

the SNP manifesto said that the Scottish Government have sole

responsibility for running the NHS and the budget, and then it feels

like the past few weeks that has kind of been put to the side. Do you

think they are passing the buck? Yes! At least one person does! If

you look at the data that came out today, we should address the point

that the gentleman raised about his wife's concerns. There is a record

number of nurses in the health service today. You can talk about

funding, but your government chose to spend ?2.4 billion on cutting

council tax, and that money could have been spent on the NHS. You

could raise tax but you chose not to do it. If we were independent, how

much more money would you spend on NHS, welfare and education? We keep

on hearing that things are going to improve, but you plan to funded by

cutting tax, which is unbelievable! ?12.1 billion deficit, one of the

highest in the Western world, how will you deal with that without

cutting services for the most vulnerable people in society?

CHEERING AND APPLAUSE If you look at the data in

government... Well, just hang on. Let him answer. If you look at

expenditure and revenue, Scotland is in a stronger financial position and

the rest of the UK to the tune of ?8.3 billion. I want to make that

well work for the people of Scotland so we can tackle the inequality that

is driving the health problems that we have in Scotland.

How much extra will you spend on welfare and health? Hang on. The

question is - how much extra are you going to spend on all of these

things? His position is he doesn't think an independent Scotland could

afford to do this. What is your answer? Scotland is in a stronger

financial position compared to the rest of the United Kingdom. What

that would enable Scotland to do is to invest more in their public

services. OK. Wait a second. The UK Government plans to increase public

expenditure by 1%. I intend to increase it by 3%. That would enable

us to invest more in the Health Service, more in our public services

and continue to... OK. And continue to reduce the deficit. It enables us

to boost the public finances of Scotland by getting more folk into

employment and investing in the fabric of our country. Alright

Alright. That is about turning our back on austerity and starting to

invest in the prosperity of our country. Thank you. Johann Lamont?

That, of course, is the public, Mr Swinney. There would be pressure

that would have to be managed. In his own document, he recognises the

financial pressures and that this would mean even the services we are

delivering now would be hard to deliver. You only have to look at

the newspapers, listen to what people is saying about what is

happening in the A, the pressures on care, the pressures that nurses

are describing, the idea that you can promise everybody the earth and

somehow at the same time, cut taxes, simply doesn't add up in terms of

arithmetic. OK. The man there, yes? Given Scotland's finances for the

NHS comes from the bloc grant - and over time we will run out of money

we need - are we not heading towards the American system of private

healthcare? That is why people want to keep it in public hands. We have

to be honest about how it is funded. We are in control of the services

now. Yes, it is under pressure. We need to acknowledge that and work on

how we are going to fund it. Joyce McMillan? The underlying question is

not what John Swinney is going to do, the underlying question is

whether people want to be making these decisions about tax and

spending in Edinburgh or in London. APPLAUSE

Charles Kennedy? Three or four years ago, I would have answered the

question by saying people are people, it doesn't matter if you

make them in London or Edinburgh. Now, having looked at what has

happened in London, not only on health policy, but on several other

areas of policy, I feel turning around that Westminster Parliament

to anything like a proper Social Democratic consensus is an almost

impossible task and I think it will be easier to get our priorities

right if we make those decisions in Edinburgh. I say that not because

I'm a Nationalist, but because I'm a Social Democrat. Charles Kennedy,

why wouldn't you want people in Scotland to take decisions that

affect the people of Scotland? We do. I mean, you know, those of us of

an age who fought the devolution campaign against Tory Governments

and the likes of Joyce and myself were happy to be on the same

platform, that was exactly what the argument was. Now, the argument is

moving forward. In fact, it has moved forward further as a result of

this referendum campaign. I'm not too critical of either side when

they develop their position as the campaign goes on. That is something

to celebrate. One of the areas, whether you look at the Health

Service - which we are talking about - many of the other areas coming up

inevitably what we are moving towards, bit by bit, is a more

decentralised, federal United Kingdom. We have already made big

moves in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast, in Greater London, with the

elected Mayor and the London Assembly, and it will have to start

happening in the regions of England as well. Part of impetus that lies

behind that March from Jarrow as we speech. We are more likely to get

that and we are more likely to meet Joyce's fair point - if Scotland is

in there, absolutely in the vanguard of that move towards a more sane,

federal United Kingdom which respects and reflects its

constituent parts - if we take our bat and ball away and leave the rest

of it to their own devices, that has to be the challenge. Let's move on

to some of the questions that Charles Kennedy was referring to

there. You can join tonight's debate on Twitter - #bbcindyref is the

hashtag. You can go to the BBC Scotland News website to see a

selection of comments. The next question? A recent study has shown a

million Scots are living in poverty with 100,000 more expected by 2020.

What would a Yes or a No vote do to address this issue? Johann Lamont?

One of the things that struck me - people will know I was cynical about

the whole referendum question. What I'm struck by, people on either side

made the decision a long time ago. In the middle, there are people who

are testing the arguments on the basis of what can we do, how do we

create a fairer society, how do we make sure we address the problems of

poverty and disadvantage. I have been committed to acting on these

questions and I look at this question, whether it is more likely

or less likely you can make progress in these policies. I think that once

we have passed the decision, whatever that decision might be, we

do need to find a way of coming together to talk about how do you

really make a difference. When Labour was in power, we did a lot of

work around investing in working families, supporting lone parents

and making sure public services responded properly to people. We

need to do more. We lifted a lot of children out of poverty by bringing

together the politics... OK. I want us to go back to that. If you have

spent your whole political life devoted to this and there are a

million Scots classed as being in poverty, hasn't your whole political

life failed? Well, you might as well say the same thing to the charities

who give voice to women, children across the country. No, you don't

give up. We are not in the same place as we were in when I was a wee

girl. The opportunities are far different from the wee girl I was in

inner city Glasgow. My concern is we have gone back. Scotland has been on

pause while we should have been wrestling with these questions. OK.

Let's move that on. The question was how would a No or a Yes vote address

poverty? It is an intractable problem. I don't think any political

party in Scotland has anything to be proud of. Labour did indeed - and

that's a fair comment - do a little to lift families and children out of

poverty. The trouble with the last Labour Government was that it was

doing these things which were good enough in themselves while, at the

same time, continuing to subscribe to the kind of general ideology

about how a society would work which pushes down wages, takes away

people's security and enhances poverty. Unless you are brave enough

to make some kind of ideological attack on that, on the idea that you

have to be a low-wage, rubbish-worked economy to make your

way in the modern world, you are not going to get very far in tackling

poverty. People need good jobs. They need secure jobs. We need to stop

running our labour market to suit the needs of bad employers - and

that includes subsidising bad employers by people huge amounts of

in-work benefits. We need a much more radical approach to this. That

goes for all the political parties, Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems.

OK. Let's take what is our first point from an undecided member of

the audience. Yes? I work for a disabl ed people's organisation and

we see how the current cuts in our welfare system are disadvantaging

disabled people. I want to know if either side can guarantee a better

benefits system for disabled people? Charles Kennedy, your party is

partly responsible for this? Yes and I've - we are in Government and I'm

not an uncritical member of Better Together and I'm not an uncritical

member of the Liberal Democrats. What is your point in relation to

independence? My point is coming right back to (a) I hope we can meet

that - and in answering the lady I will tell you why. If you look at

the whole of history, poverty, social poverty, has been best

addressed when the politicians actually get beyond what all too

often is our poverty of ambition. And one of my political heroes is

Franklin D Roosevelt and in the midst of the most appalling

depression in the middle of the 20th Century in the United States, he

came forward with a new deal and he shook the timbers of the

establishment right across that continent and he transformed it in a

way that he built a consensus that lasted for another 40 or 50 years.

Now, that is what we need to do in the United Kingdom as well. One of

the things that struck me, both as a participant, but equally as an

observer of programmes like this over the course of the past few

weeks in particular, is there is no poverty of ambition in Scottish -

and I would also say UK politics. If it is a No vote on September 19th

onwards, we need to use the clear political ambition that's there

right across the spectrum with fresh thinking, new ideas and a greater

sense of impetus than we have had before. We can do it in Scotland. We

can do it in our reform in the United Kingdom and we can do

something about poverty in an imaginative way that has not been

seen post-war in this country. That has to be the ambition. That has to

be the challenge that we are putting in front of ourselves as Scots. The

audience are waiting to come in. You had your hand high up in the air? I

have been working for the past couple of months and it is a

disheartening job to be working in. People have said to me they have not

eaten for the past two days. That is the type of situation...

Independence would solve that, would it? The question I will put is: Most

of the people... Let's hear her answer. Sir, let's hear her answer.

Yes? There has been a lot of angry men shouting but I would like to

have a civil one. Basically, the main reason they are coming to me is

for benefit sanctions which the Labour Party have not stood strongly

against. The question of independence is not for the SNP and

we have to stop misconstruing this. The question of independence is now

saying we have the opportunity in 2014 to take a new Scotland, to put

the power in people's hands and start asking what we want from

society. Thank you. That is what independence gives us. Thank you

very much. APPLAUSE

Isn't the inherent problem here, John Swinney, isn't the problem

always going to come back to the same thing? Where is all this money

going to come from? It must be difficult and expensive to solve

poverty if it has not been achieved in the United Kingdom, why should it

be different, why would it be different in an independent

Scotland? We would have all of the tools at our disposal to live up to

values that have just been set out by the young woman there. What

tools? Well, the tools of integrating a tax and benefit system

so we incentivise people to go into employment, to have the ability to

establish linked-up employment programmes which would work with our

charities, the young lady at the back talked about the people with

disabilities. I have seen many good examples of - we are funding them

already, Sir. And I have seen very good examples - the problem with the

projects that we have got just now is that all the good work that we

are doing has been undone by the welfare cuts made by the United

Kingdom Government that's forcing more and more people into the

self-same food banks that we have just heard about a moment ago. OK.

That is the route of the problem. -- root of the problem. We have known

about the problem for years. We have known about it from the Labour

Government who have tried to tackle the issues. Why is it going up? We

have to take better decisions here in Scotland according to our values

and our aspirations. wanted to take better decisions to

better your view on poverty, why did you freeze the council tax for

everyone across the income spectrum? I could have paid more, I didn't

need a freeze, it could have been used to help local councils and

people in poverty, but you chose not to do that. That policy hit the

poor, didn't it? No, it didn't... The council tax freeze had a

disproportionately big impact on incomes of those who are poorer

within our society, that is the data... That is the data on the

council tax freeze. What we did was take the heat off a lot of hard

pressed, working families who were being absolutely hammered by

sky-high increases in council tax, that is why we froze council tax.

OK. Thank you. A lot of people benefited, but the poorest people,

they did not benefit most. I would also say this - there are a lot of

things the Scottish Government can do, and one of the big things to get

people out of poverty is to get them ready for work. A critical role is

colleges, for people living in poverty, who don't do particularly

well at school, I thought many of them, and they get a second chance

at college. Why, of all places, as cuts come disproportionately in the

college sector? 140,000 places fewer, women in particular

suffering, and as a consequence women who need part-time education

to get skills to work are disproportionately affected. These

are the very mums who can make a difference to families if they were

supported. There is not one policy the Scottish Government has

promoted, no matter how good they are, that redistributes wealth from

the rich to the poor, that is the reality. At the back in blue, yes. I

have two quick points. My understanding of the Scotland act

from 1998, which set up the Scottish Parliament as a devolved power,

could add a stroke be cutout by Westminster at any time of its

choosing. The whole of the Scottish Parliament could be completely

dissolved. The second point is, it is very telling that throughout this

whole debate in Scotland there has not been one single conservative

person come to speak at an event, because, let's be realistic, I

admire you greatly, jars, but you will not have a cat's chance in hell

of forming the next UK Government, and therefore you will have no

power, you can promise as nothing. In fairness, the last time John

Swinney was on this programme, he was sitting alongside Ruth Davidson,

but anyway, let's go down to the front. I would like to raise, OK,

you have froze the council tax, but it affected people on low incomes -

it did not benefit them. Then education, example, free education

became no education. Why did it become no education? Because the

colleges merged. You cut the spaces, students that had a space lost their

space. Not only that, you cut... Well, I could keep going on. We have

the point, thank you very much. Joyce McMillan. I agree with the

criticisms of SNP policy, I do not approve of the council tax freeze,

councils should have more power to vary tax, and we need a radical

reform of local government in Scotland. I agree that we need much

more local government in Scotland, and I think that, you know, as far

as the colleges policy and so on is concerned, I don't agree with what

the SNP do. But those are not arguments against independence, they

are arguments against the policy of the current SNP government. So in a

sense, I feel as if we are slightly drifting off the point in the sense

that, of course, you can disagree with things that the present

governance has done, but unless you believe that Scotland is such a

naturally impoverished place that we would have absolutely no room for

manoeuvre in setting policies at all, and I don't believe that, then

the fact is that if we have an independent Scotland, you can vote

for someone else. In one sentence, if you please. The logic of that

position is that you can disagree with Tory policies and still want to

be part of the United Kingdom, that is what we are saying. We will get a

Labour government is what we are saying. We will get a Labour

government next day, all the figures are showing that. Why would we want

not to deal with the policies of the Tory government inside the security

of the United Kingdom? But it will be a centre-left Labour government

centre right? Of course it will. That is the question. We are talking

about hours contracts, talking with women about how they would end

zero-hours contracts. We argued for a living wage, and it was the SNP

who voted it down, that is something we would do at UK level. It is about

political choice, not the constitution, and we need to get

back to that argument. I would like to move on, very brief. With all due

respect to Joyce, I cannot help, and with the point raised at the back a

moment ago, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say this is all

about the rebate and re-establishment of democracy, and

then at the wave of a hand right of three political parties as having no

choice and no relevance, and Joyce slightly saying, oh, its defence,

even if we got a Labour government, would it be centre-left or centre

right? Well, I'm on a minute. If you are making a great democratic

choice, you have got to accept the outcome of that choice in due

course, not just... I am making this choice providing ident get precisely

what I want ideologically! That is not a logical position, not a

logical position. Charles, that really does not come well from a

Liberal Democrat, YouGov and a lot of votes at the last election, as

you know, by positioning to the left of the Labour Party. -- you

garnered. That includes student grants and you absolutely... You

have made the point. If you are going to stand on left-wing policies

and then moved to the right when you are elected, who can trust you?

Thank you very much. I... OK. As Joyce will knows, because she has

been complementing the about days gone by, I stand on the same values

and principles I always stood on, and the policies on which I led the

Liberal Democrats. We are going to take the next question, which is

from Dorothy Duncan. In last night's debate in Glasgow, to the

panel think that Mr Salmond was able to allay concerns to the electorate

regarding the currency issue? Thank you very much. Thank you very much

indeed, to the panel think Mr Salmond was able to allay concerns

about currency? Charles Kennedy. I do not think he laid the concerns of

those who have great doubts and questions about it. In fact, and is

rather surprised me as a matter of fact, he rhetorically went on the

front foot, and I would try to be a fair judge of this. I would say, as

a debating performance last night, Alex Salmond clearly won in the way

that Alistair Darling won a couple of weeks earlier, but I do not think

these debates, to be honest, I was not cock-a-hoop, with either

victory. I think it is much more complicated than that, it is not a

presidential election, it is a much bigger debate, as we are reflecting

here. In terms of the currency, the things that surprised me, in going

on the front foot, he actually said, I have got three Plan Bs. Now, this

could be a clever tactic. This could be a clever tactic in the sense of

take as much dust in your opponents's eyes as you can. That

could work for him, I don't think it will. But he also said, I want a

mandate, and this was the development of the argued that we

had not heard before, and it is a very interesting development in this

campaign. I want you, ladies and gentlemen, he said, to give me a

mandate to go and negotiate the best outcome, the best option for

Scotland. Now, just think about the language for a moment, if you

please. If I say to you, give me a mandate and I will get the best deal

I can, the implication is, I will come back and tell you what it is

and you will say you opt for or against it. He doesn't remind you,

they will go away, he might trade to get a deal, he made me not get a

deal. -- he may try. Let's concede as much of it to him as possible, he

will sure as anything come back and say it is the best deal that was

available, but he will not ask you in a second referendum, is that what

you want? That is the implication of the mandate adamant, a complete ruse

on people, and I think it will be his downfall. -- the mandate

argument. OK. Just taking a gamble, can we afford to take a gamble?

Where will we back our currency? What will happen if large businesses

leave? John Swinney. The First Minister set out a clear

proposition... Give him a break! He set out the proposition that the

Scottish Government is putting forward, which is to argue for a

currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of

the United Kingdom which is in the interests of both an independent

Scotland and the rest of the UK. What he also did was made very clear

that we have done all the groundwork to set out what are the different

options that would be there for an independent Scotland if it chose to

do so, but our priority, our preference, our argument, our best

argument, the one that our independent experts believed to be

in the interest of an independent Scotland, was to keep the pound as

part of a currency union, and I thought the First Minister got that

across very clearly, very powerfully. Yes, the man, Batman, in

fact! When I leave here today, I am going to go home on the bus. I do

not have a Plan B, just in case there is not one. But I might get a

taxi, I might get a train, I might do a million things. But I will

eventually get home. Realistically, I'm going to get a bus, we are going

to use the pound, no-one can stop us from using the pound. Can we talk

about something else for a bit?! CHEERING AND APPLAUSE

I am sorry to say we are going to talk about it for a little bit

longer! Johann Lamont. It reflected on last night's debate, if shouting

won the debate, Alex Salmond won it. I have to say... As someone

who... Johann, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! I

thought it took the look of myself and Nicola Sturgeon, but the idea

that you can flippantly say, it is like buses, when you're talking

about something as serious as a currency, that is gravely concerning

to me. But Scotland will have a currency, isn't that the point? The

First Minister could argue you would be able to expect the sovereign

right of the people of Scotland, but curiously significant part of the

Yes campaign to not agree with the First Minister on this. Whatever

this mandate is, he has not got the ability to mandate the rest of the

United Kingdom and their position. Let's be clear, what we are asking

is the Bank of England to stand behind our banks. The Bank of

England is supported by the UK Government, which can only do that

because it is supported by taxpayers right across the United Kingdom.

Let's think, something happens to a bank in Scotland, the taxpayers of

the rest of the United Kingdom have to step in to protect our banks

despite the fact that we are not contributing to that. That makes no

sense for the rest of the United Kingdom, and I cannot imagine why we

would want to put ourselves in that position either. It makes no sense.

Once we are separate countries, we sadly to each other nothing, and we

deserve better from a First Minister who is making the case for Scotland

to do something as dramatic as leaving the United Kingdom, to

explain in simple terms what he is going to do. What he is proposing

now is sterlingisation, which Professor Ronald McDonald has said

would mean a deficit of ?12.6 billion, not six point zero billion

pounds. -- not ?6 billion. I would like to ask the women in the

undecideds in the middle, yes, with the glasses. I wanted to address the

currency debate. By discipline, I am an economist, and I have invested in

different currencies around the world. Thank goodness you are here!

I get so irritated by this. I think this is a political football. I

actually think Alex Salmond's response last night was an adequate

response. APPLAUSE

The thing that concerns me, though, is if we votes yes on September the

18th, I am not convinced that all the negotiations can happen in the

18 months timetable, and I want to table, maybe this is ten years of

negotiation and doesn't really matter. Joyce McMillan, please. I

think that is right. I think the 18 months is indeed extremely

optimistic. You could declare an independent state, but you can bet

your bottom dollar, and indeed we might be using the dollar, that

there would be another decade of negotiations, it is a very

complicated situation, but the fact is that if there is a yes vote, then

the whole structure of power in the UK will change overnight. And if

there is one thing I have learnt about dealing with Westminster over

the years as a civic campaigner is that you have to play hardball, you

have to have power in order to bring them to the negotiating table. And

when the Scottish people votes yes, if they do, then the whole balance

of power will change, and the civil servants in Whitehall and everyone

else in the structure of British Government will have to start

thinking, what is the best outcome that we can now get from this new

situation? And that will change their thinking. No, that will change

their thinking about everything. There will be a long and congregated

negotiation on issues like Trident, and on how it is going to take to

decommission Trident. -- long and conjugated. There will be issues

about the whole of the energy industry in Scotland, how it is

handled, issues about how the assets of the United Kingdom are divided

up. Scotland will go into that negotiation with plenty of cars in

its hand, and you can bet your bottom dollar and agreement will be

reached. As Alex Salmond said last night, there is no country in the

world last night that does not have a working currency.

Yes? If Scotland does become independent, this is all - it is not

about the pound. If we applied to re-join the EU, we would be forced

to accept the euro. John Swinney? Could I make three

brief points? The lady's... Three? They will be very brief. If you want

to join the euro, it starts with a voluntary act of joining the

Exchange Rate Mechanism. An independent Scotland wouldn't do so.

The lady asked about the timescale for transition for negotiation. The

UK Government's legal adviser said our 18-month timescale was "about

accurate" - Professor James Crawford. The final point - one of

the revelations about the currency last night was one of the points

that Alistair Darling made. In one of his responses he said, "Of course

you can use the pound." I have got a leaflet here from Johann Lamont

which says in response to a question, "What will the currency be

in an independent Scotland?" She says, "It won't be the pound."

Johann Lamont? Because like your fiscal commission, I couldn't

possibly conceive that anybody was serious about protecting public

services in Scotland would want to have sterlingisation. Not to be able

to rely on your funding... Is Alistair Darling right when he

Scotland could use the pound? Scotland could use the pound. So

that is wrong? That is it. This leaflet that is going around the

houses, like all the rest of it, is absolute rubbish. We heard it from

Johann Lamont tonight. No. Look, this is not a game. No, it is not a

game. This is total rubbish! We have heard it tonight. Hang on a second.

Johann Lamont? Because of the unbelievable damage it would do to

the people of Scotland. We would not want to advocate using the pound

like Panama uses the dollar. Joyce McMillan? One thing that puzzles me

is the lack of attention paid to the many countries becoming independent

of the UK, including Ireland. They used something which was effectively

the pound, which they called "the punt". Treasury officials were

helpful to the Irish government in setting that up. I really cannot

think why people think that it is going to be more difficult for us to

negotiate some kind of arrangement to use the pound if we think that is

the best solution for us. After a perfectly peaceful referendum, when

Ireland was able to do that after a bitter and civil war. Ireland did

progress... Charles Kennedy? Ireland did progress once it went into the

euro. Charles Kennedy? Do you think Scotland should go into the euro?

No. Ironically, a number of years ago, Alex Salmond and I would have

been on the same side of the debate calling for a referendum on the

principle if the UK was ready for entry to get a Yes vote so

Parliament at that point could have decided to enter the euro had the

conditions been right. Time has moved on. We both are not of the

view that the euro is a good option for us. Let's get this point about

this rhetoric in last night's debate - I don't want to disappoint our

friends over here on the Yes side - it is a good rhetorical debating

point. If Alistair Darling had completed the sentence, "Look at the

debate, ladies and gentlemen..." He was in the middle of saying,

"Scotland could use the pound..." And he went on to say, "The rouble."

It's a pound which isn't backed by a Central Bank, so there's a run on

the pound, if there is a run, you are stuffed. It's a pound, remember,

which if you were using it in that independent fashion, not the UK

sterling that we have at the moment, Alex Salmond made clear if they

don't give us that, his idea of negotiation, we wouldn't settle or

shoulder the debts and if you didn't do that on day one of an independent

Scotland, never mind London and the terrible people down there, the

international markets would have you for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I

want to put that to John Swinney. Alex Salmond said in last night's

debate if you deny us the financial assets, the UK will get stuck with

all of the liabilities. Is that now your firm position, you would

definitely walk away, call it what you will, from the debt if there was

no currency union? Is that your firm position? Alex Salmond said last

night that our preferred option was a currency union... We all know

that. We know that. It is important that... Everybody knows that. It is

important that I fully answer your question. We support a currency

union in which we would take our fair share of the debt that's been

built up over time. If the UK is going to seize the assets, then it

is welcome to all the liabilities. We won't be having any of them if

that is how the UK behaves. OK. We are rapidly running out of time.

Another question from Helen Kevlin? The amount of oil to be obtained in

the future has been reported with conflicting views. Who is telling

the truth? Sir Ian Wood, who is an expert in the field, a businessman

of some note, says it's between 15.5 billion and 16 billion barrels

remain. Joyce McMillan? I don't know who is telling the truth and what's

more, I don't think anyone else does. The future is unwritten, oil

is a volatile resource and an independent Scotland would be well

advised not to be too dependent on it. In any case, if we want to have

a genuinely sustainable future, we should be thinking about leaving

some of that oil in the ground and not exploiting it at all. However,

the idea that Scotland having this oil wealth, which we have, is

somehow a bad thing, because it inflicts volatility on our economy,

seems to me to be fairly ridiculous. There are many, many countries in

the world - Norway being the most obvious - which have managed to

found a very strong national economy by using their oil wealth wisely. I

do not think the greatest friend of the UK as a union could possibly

argue that Scotland's oil wealth has been used wisely for the future of

the people of the United Kingdom. Johann Lamont? Since it was

discovered in 1970. The argument being that Westminster squandered

the oil then. Why trust them not to squander it in the future? Looking

forward, what we are told is that there is a great range of options in

terms of what would come out of the ground. What is Labour's position? I

was very much affected by Sir Ian Wood's contribution. It felt like he

didn't want to come into this debate. He said for the interests of

my children and grandchildren, they need to know from now until they are

middle-aged, oil will be something that no longer contributes majorly

to the economy. People need to understand the implications of that.

They will know the figures better than I do. Last year, the amount of

money raised came in at ?4 billion less than was estimated by the

Scottish Government. We are talking about how we are going to fund our

Health Service, our schools. How are we going to do that with a resource

that is so volatile? Across the whole of the United Kingdom, you can

manage that volatility. John's spending plans are based on oil and

that is a volatile resource. I am concerned that we will get ourselves

in a position where the most generous estimate comes from the

Scottish Government. They have to guarantee that to deal with the

pressures on public services. Let's put that to John Swinney. Johann

Lamont is right, there was a 41% drop in revenue from North Sea oil

in the last financial year. If that happened in the first year of an

independent Scotland, we would be in trouble? We can see oil forecasts

moves in both directions. Alistair Darling forecast there would be ?5

billion of revenues coming from oil and gas - and it turned out to be

?11 billion. So he was ?6 billion adrift. So, what you do - and what

we set out - is that you need to have an oil stabilisation fund.

Where you gain on the one year, you hold that to balance if you have got

years where you don't deliver as many revenues... Isn't the first few

years, before you can set that up, you would struggle to balance the

books if there was a big you would struggle to balance the

books if there was a drop like last year? My point was about the oil

stabilisation fund, James. You use gains to cushion underrealisation of

resources that come in general. If you look at the issue about the

volume of resources, James, the 24 billion barrel oils of figure comes

from the industry. It's been backed by... Up to 24 billion - 12 to 24

billion range. Backed up by a range of experts, like Professor Alex Kemp

or Professor Donald Mackay. Ian Wood in 2012 gave an interview to Douglas

Fraser in which he said 24 billion barrels was what could be expected

to come out... Charles Kennedy? OK. There is a significant opportunity

for Scotland and we should make sure we seize that opportunity and not

see it squandered like it was the last time.

One of the things about this whole referendum - and why I'm looking

forward to the 19th - we will not have to switch on the television and

have another expert, professor, and none of them damn well seem to agree

with each other and it leave it is lay person in the middle even more

confused! It was so much simpler in the 1970s, the SNP said, "It's

Scotland's oil" and you either agreed or you didn't. It doesn't

matter how many barrels of oil there are even if it stretches to

infinity. You are going to turn this small country of ours into a petrol

currency with an unknown future in terms of which mode of currency you

are using, and that uncertainty underpinned by not paying your debts

from day one. Charles Kennedy, thank you very much. Thank you very much.

That will be a recipe for disaster. Very sorry to tell you that our time

is up. It has flown by. We are back next Wednesday when we will be in

Aberdeen. On our panel the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, Jim

Murphy, Brian Souter and Annabel Goldie. Our final programme will be

in Stirling. To join the audience, go to:

Thank you to the panel. Thank you to our audience and from Leith Academy

in Edinburgh, a very good night.