it is the inside story. hem low, i am ray swarez. a long long time ago there were many different nationalities separate countries on the island of britain. the people spoke

different languages over time, practiced different varieties of the christian religion, made different alliances around the world, in time, the riches and most powerful of the country's in britain, england, united whales scotland and ireland under one monarch and one government run from london, after three centuries of union, the people of scotland have agitated for more and more autonomy, running more of their affairs in scotland. now many are saying they want a complete break, to become a separate self-governing country, making that almost inconsequential line, into a real international border. will that benefit the scotts? do the english want them to stay in the united kingdom? the polling is in two weeks, and scottish public opinion is closely divided. >> should scotland be an independent country? in just two weeks, more than 4 million voters will have the chance to either check the box yes, or not.

scottish governments first minister alex salmon is leading the crusade for the yes campaign. >> few societies anywhere have secured this opportunity. to vote themselves -- this is an opportunity peacefully, and a process agreed andeen agreed and consented. it is an opportunity which may not come our way again. >> alster darling head of the better together campaign, is arguing for keeping the status quo. we do not need to divide these islands into separate states in order to assert our identity. we can have the best worlds with more decisions become taken here, backed up by the united kingdom. >> according to the b. b. c., throughout 2013, better together led strongly in the polls by an estimated 50% to 33%. now, the gap is dramatically narrowed, this week, the pollsters

atugov says four % want independence, 53% want to stay with the united kingdom. >> we have the results in the industries confidence, i think we can do it. >> so we will always be scotts. i think it should stay that way. >> but the referendum is not just about national identity, it is about money, and politics. scotland's north sea oil and gas reserves, are worth an estimated $2.5 trillion. the s campaign says that's enough to help fund a new nation. but better together, says oil money is not reliable, and will eventually run out. >>

. >> they would continue using the british found. >> we believe the best option for scotland, what i am seeking a mandate for, is to have the pound sterling so we pay our messages we pay our mortgage, we get our wages, i am seeking the best option, so our prosperous economy keeps it going. >> but the three major parties of the united kingdom say they won't allow an independent scotland to use their sterling. of course we can use it. >> awe. >> we can use anything we want. the problem is, if you are using somebody else's currency, you don't have a central bank, so our financial services can't exist in scotland. >> if voters decide on september 18th they want to stay in the union, it's improbable there would be another push for independent for some time.

if first minister do come out victorious, it's likely they will host a huge party. >> 307 years after the acts of union, is scotland nearly a region of one country, or still such a distinct separate particular place that it has the same claim to independence as more recently established countries like the czech republic. croatia, or astone yeah. on a more practical level, would scotland be a kingdom or a republic. have an established church, an army, membership in the european union. and what would be used for money. in abbeer deem. joining us to consider the future of scotland, lord jeremy a liberal democrat member of the house of lords the upper chamber of the british parliament, and adam

ramsey, a campaign fresh the pro independent group yes scotland. our guests join us from scotland, welcome to the program. adam let's start with you. why an independent scotland, and why now. >> i think people all across the u.k. are pretty fed up with the kind of broken westminster political system, the fact that we have jeremy on the telly with us tonight, who is a life member of the house of the legislature, that's -- by the prime minister of this country, we have one of the most undomic systems in the western world, and so the chance to escape that system i think is thrilling. that system that makes britain the most unequal country in europe, and it has imposed particularly on scotland, and other parts of the u.k. as well, particularly right wing brand, of economics. we want to get away from it.

i know in recent decades scotland has become tera incognito to the conservative party. but don't political pendulums swing back and forth. because you don't like the current government. >> i think it isn't just the conservative party, if that was the case -- the labor party provided over a massive increase in equality, and i think more and more people aacross the country, are beginning to realize the thing that is broken is the system. or normal countries stuck in this parliament that was built for a previous era. we live in a modern

world, and joining the nations -- on the international stage, is much much better for us than hiding behind the big bully on the world stage. >> how about it? dissatisfied part of the country, that has the ability to decide it's own future. maybe, deciding to get out. what's your counter argument. >> well, i think it is something that all of us that believes in the united kingdom takes a great deal of pride in. the united kingdom is facilitating a democratic process, athrilling democratic process. for one nation, that makes up the united kingdom, can decide whether or not it wishes to stay part of the union. now, i was a member, directly elected member of the scottish parliament for two terms before i was appointed to the house of lords. in the scottish legislature.

with 100% power, how it was spent, and people who supported the s&p, or independent, argued for that while i was a member of the t soish parliament, and as i am a member of the house of lords now. now, i think the real question is, should scotland carry on it's part of the united kingdom and see it flourish? if that is the case, then we have to focus on the real issues for scotland. for the areas currently, that is the responsibility of the scottish parliament, and retomorrowing westminster, and i am a reformist, i am a liberal democrat, i believe in a second chamber. effectively to vote myself out of a job but i would prefer for scotts to be in the parliament to playing a role on the global stage, but also on all of these issues that effect parts of the united kingdom, rather than to leave the union, and then seen somehow to try to negotiate our way

back in. back into the european union, back quite cure usually into nato, so i think the best opportunities for scotland, going forward, not to rely on our past, is for scotland to play a leading role in the united kingdom. >> isn't scotland in a pretty sweet position in some ways? one than shared by england? you have representatives making decisions and also representative whose go down to westminster to vote on other national platters. certainly i have lived most of the last five years of my life in england. i feel sorry for people that don't have this opportunity to break from that stifling westminster politics which has been so damaging to people in the u.k. the most unequal country in europe. it is not a reason to

remain governed by that system. almost the entire budget set by werners. it isn't as though kit protect itself from the worst decisions made. parliament that has the entire budget set by another parliament, there are very few democratic bodies like that in the world, and jeremy is right, he was a member of the parliament for two terms and i didn't vote for his party, but they did a good job. then either of the government, more conservative and democratic democrat have done now, so i think the success of him and his colleagues is a testament to what we can do. the question in this is which power dozen we want to be held. i can't think of any power i would rather have decided than a closer more democratic one. foreign policy, do we really

want to have imperial werners to decide if we are going into the future of iran. no, i would rather have one closer to us. lord, what do you make of that argument. >> when the scottish parliament endorsed having nuclear weapons and really the -- there is two arguments here. the first is basically party political. and you don't really make constitutional change, and i don't think the future of scotland is part of a union or not, should be determined by party political positioning. you may have different policies. the question is part of -- >> in the nations across britain, whether you can have a stronger base.

some of the best in the world, so proud of these units also benefit massively from united kingdom wide research funding. where i am speaking from this evening one of the best in the world, received the same amount of money from u.k. based research grands as it does from the government and the parliament that i was a member of. so it is so inter2009ed that the united kingdom and scotland playing a leading role, provides the best base to grow our economy. and actually, i think it is not the best platform to say that we are moving away from these nations that are currently our partners. into what will be a different country, with barriers and in certain areas like trade, a degree of competition. and if it is so clear,

that we should be so disstability from the other parts of the union, i'm puzzled why the first minister is so keep to say that we will have an on server status, in the bank of england, which would be the bank of a foreign country, running our currency, setting interest rates the the english economy, but would effect scotland, and inflation rates can we wouldn't determine, that's actually less awe townmy, and less influence over the scottish economy. it is a very curious argument. i am going to jump in, because we will talk about the brackett callties of this divorce. later on in the program, we will be back with more inside story, after a short break, stay with us.

ukraine's president says he has reached a ceasefire agreement with russia in the eastern region of donetsk. >> president barack obama is about to hold a news conference, and the leaders have agreed to a military plan to support ukraine. this involves a rapid reaction consisting of some 3500 troops, and in addition, there was word today that ukrainian president, petro poroshenko and vladimir putin have agreed on a ceasefire, and that has already gone into effect. so let's listen, as we wait for the president, he should step up in a moment, let's listen to

president poroshenko announcing a ceasefire earlier today. >> i've given to the chief of my military to declare a ceasefire in half an hour time, at 6:00 ukrainian time. 4:00 london time. now, it's very important that this ceasefire lasts long, and during this ceasefire we continue the dialogue. >> again, ukrainian president, poroshenko, announcing the ceasefire, and we expect president obama to talk about that and follow the same remarks that we heard about an hour ago from british president, david cameron, who said that they welcome the ceasefire. and we expect the president to say something similar. the results, perhaps some news that the president may get into regarding the efforts, the

attack in somalia over the weekend, al shabab, that took responsibility for killing hundreds of people in a mall attack in nairobi, kenya, and this is what the administration has been focusing on. there was a drone strike last weekend. and the pont gone examined it. and the leader of al shabaab has been killed. and then there's the issue of islamic state. the administration is under tremendous pressure in washington to take the attacks on islamic state, not just in northern iraq, but beyond that into syria, the president has discussions with european allies about that, and there has been no formal announcement and no formal agreement, only the sense that the president is trying to build a coalition for supporting such attacks. again, expecting the president

to address primarily the developments in ukraine, with where it stands with russia right now, and if he takes questions, a few statements about where u.s. policy may be headed regarding islamic state in syria. as we wait for president obama, let's go to aljazeera's phil, in london with the latest on the ukrainian ceasefire, and phil, how is this playing? >> reporter: well, here in the uk, it's playing in the sense that they're certainly happy to see the -- >> we're going to listen to president obama. >> and the entire team for hosting this nato summit and making it such a success, and i want to thank the people of new port and cardiff, and the people of wales for welcoming me and my delegation so warmly. it's a great honor to be the first sitting u.s. president to visit wales. we met at a time of transition, and a time of testing. after more than a decade,

nato's combat mission in afghanistan is coming to an end. russia's aggression against ukraine threatens our vision of a europe that's whole, free and at peace. in the middle east, the terrorist threats from isil poses a growing danger. in this summit, the alliance with the will, the resources and the capabilities to meet all of these challenges. first and foremost, we have reaffirmed the central mission of the alliance. article five enshrines our solemn duty to each other. an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all. this is a binding, treaty obligation. it is non-negotiable. and here in wales, we have left absolutely no doubt. we will defend every ally. second, we agreed to be resolute in reassuring our allies in eastern europe.

increased nato air support over the baltics will continue, and additional forces throughout eastern europe where training exercises will continue. nato patrols in the black sea will continue, and all 28 nato nations agree to contribute to all of these measures for as long as necessary. third, to ensure that nato remains prepared for any contingency, we agree it a new readiness action plan. the defense will update its defense plan, and we will create a highly rapid response force that can be deployed on very short notice. we will increase nato's presence in central and eastern europe with training and exercises and troop rotations, and the $1 billion initiative that i announced in warsaw will be a strong and ongoing u.s. contribution to this plan. fourth, all 28 nato nations

have pledged to increase their investments in defense, and move toward investing 2% of their gdp and our collective security. these resources will help nato invest in capabilities, intelligence, reconnaissance and missile defense. and this commitment makes clear that nato last name be complaisant. our lives will reverse the decline in defense spending and rise to meet the challenge that's we face in the 21st century. firth, our alliance is fully united in ukraine's sovereignty, independence, territorial internet and the right to defend itself. all 28 nato allies will provide security assistance to ukraine. this includes non-lethal support to the ukrainian military, care for wounded troops, and assistance to help

modernize ukrainian forces, including logistics and command and control. here in wales, we send a strong message to russia that actions have consequences. today the united states and europe are finalizing measures to deepen and broaden our sanctions across russia's financial, energy and defense sectors, and at the same time, we strongly support president poroshenko's efforts for a peaceful resolution to the conflicts in his country. the ceasefire today can advance that goal. but only if there's follow through on the ground. pro russian separatists must keep their commitments, and russia must stop its of violations of ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. beyond europe, 2200 americans have given their lives for security in afghanistan. nato's combat mission ends in

three months, and we're prepared to transition to a new mission, focusing on training, advising and assisting afghanistan security forces. both presidents have pledged to sign a bilateral security agreement that would be the foundation of our continued cooperation, but as we all know, the outcome of the recent election must be resolved. so we continue to urge the two presidential candidates to make the compromises that are necessary so afghans can move forward together and form a sovereign, united and democratic nation. finally, we reaffirm that the door to nato membership remains open to nations that can meet our high standards. we agree to expand the partnership that makes nato the hub of security, launching with our partners in afghanistan, to make sure that our forces continue to operate together. and will create a new initiative to help countries

build their defense capabilities, starting with georgia, muldova, libya. and i leave here confident that nato's partners are prepared to join in a broad international effort to combat the threat posed by isis. already, allies have joined us in iraq, where we have stopped isil's advances, and we have equipped our iraqi partners and helped them. nato has agreed to play a role in security and humanitarian assistance to those on the front lines. key nato allies stand ready to combat this threat through military, intelligence, and law enforcement as well as diplomatic efforts. and secretary kerney will now travel to the region to continue building the broad-based coalition to help us degrade and ultimately destroy isil. so i think the progress that we have achieved in wales makes it clear that our alliance will do whatever is necessary to ensure

our collective defense and to protect our citizens. so with that, let me take a few questions. i'll start with julie pace of the associated press. >> reporter: thank you, mr. president. i wanted to go back to the situation in ukraine. if the ceasefire takes affect and appears to be holding, would you and your counterparts back away from this, or do you feel that it's important to levee these sanctions, and if i could go back to the rapid response force, can you say what the u.s. contribution will be in regards to troops. if beyond what you said before? >> with respect to the ceasefire agreement, obviously, we're hopeful, but based on past experience, also sceptical that in fact the separatists will follow through and the russians will stop violating

ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, so it has to be tested. the europeans are discussing at this point the final shape of their sanctions measures. it's my view that if you look at president poroshenko's plan, it is going to take sometime to implement. and the consequence for us to move forward, based on what is currently happening on the ground with sanctions, while acknowledging that if in fact the elements of the plan that has been signed are implemented, then those sanctions could be lifted is a more likely way for us to ensure that there's followthrough. but that's something that obviously we'll consult closely with our european partners to determine. i do want to point out though that the only reason that we're seeing this ceasefire at this moment is because of both the

sanctions that are already been applied, and the threat of further sanctions, which are having a real impact on the reduction economy, and have isolated russia in a way that we have not seen in a very long time. the path for russia to rejoin the community of nations that respects international law is still there. and we encourage president putin to take it. but the unity and the firmness that we have seen in the transatlantic alliance in supporting ukraine in applying sanctions has been i think a testimony to how seriously people take the basic principle that big countries can't stomp on little countries or force them to change their policies and give up their sovereignty. so i'm very pleased with the kind of work that has been done

throughout this crisis in ukraine. and i think u.s. leaderships have been critical throughout that process. with respect to espect to more recently petro porashenko, the ukranian president insisting in warsaw i announced $1 billion in our initiative. a sizable portion of that will be devoted to implementing various aspects of this readiness action plan. we have already increased obviously rotations of personnel in the baltic states, for example. we have the air policing. we have the activities that are taking place in the baltic and the black sea, but this allows us to supplement it. it allows us to coordinate and integrate it further with