>> did you make any statements -- >> not false ones from the white house. >> did you make any statements in support of the claim that this administration was negotiating with moderates from iran on this deal? >> not that i recall.>> did youe statements in any of the statements that you made? did you support them? >> not that i recall. >> not that you recall. >> my focus has been on the

substance of the agreement. and having done non-proliferation for five years, i see an agreement that is the most detailed of any kind -- >> okay, that's great. many countryman, understand that while the last questioner outlined the fact that we're 36 months late or triggers designation for sanctions, we have a trust issue here between congress and the administration who objectively falsified the timeline, and i think you could have said something, but you chose not to -- >> i have not seen a false timeline. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> we thank the witnesses. we thank general scott perry and the other members of the committee here for their participation as well, and we'll continue the dialogue on this issue. thank you very much. appreciate your attendance. we stand adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> coming up this morning on c-span2, a british parliamentary committee on how scotland would be affected if the united kingdom leaves the e.u. the senate returns to take up the 2017 $602 billion defense policy and programs bill. ♪ ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. and coming up this morning, virginia democratic congressman bobby scott will join us to talk

about a report released by the gao which found that k-12 schools across the u.s. are segregated by race and poverty. the report was released last week on the 62nd anniversary of the brown v. board of education decision. he'll discuss what this means for education and the future of non-white springs in the u.s -- individuals in the u.s. then arkansas republican congress bank bruce westerman will join us about the current budget and spending impasse, the the recent bipartisan agreement to restructure puerto rico's $70 debt, also the presidential campaign and lgbt issues before congress. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" coming up live at seven eastern this morning. join the discussion. the california primary is june 7th, and today c-span's coverage of campaign 2016 continues when we bring you senator bernie sanders speaking to supporters at a campaign

rally in ventura, california. see it live at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span3. later, hillary clinton speaks to supporters at a hallly in san jose, california -- rally in san jose, california, starting at 4:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> a behind-the-scenes effort to remove representative debbie wasserman schultz as the chair of the democratic national committee, the story is available on thehill.com, and joining us is managing editor, bob i cusack. thanks very much for being with us. >>ing >> thanks. >> host: what are democratic lawmakers tries to do in anticipation of what may happen in philadelphia in july? >> guest: democrats are very concerned about the lack of unity in the party, and they want to have some type of a deal between bernie sanders and hillary clinton so that the party can come together and defeat donald trump in the fall. now, bernie sanders' campaign, he's threatening to go all the way to the convention in

philadelphia this summer, so basically, it's part of the deal making. one of the ideas floated is that debbie wasserman schultz who endorsed hillary clinton in 2008, of course, the chairwoman of the dnc, she would step down because the sanders' supporters have felt she has tilted the scales in hillary clinton's direction. they've been upset that she's set a number of debates on weekends when a lot of people are doing other activities as opposed to watching debates. and, of course, recently in the wake of a chaotic democratic convention in nevada where sanders' supporters thought the establishment was basically not being fair in how they were allocating delegates. there is real tension going at, directed at debbie wasserman schultz, and we talked to some senior-level democrats who said she's got to think about stepping down, but there's no indication that she's going to step down. while we were reporting our

story in the last couple hours before deadline, we had calls and e-mails from many high level democrats supporting her, including nancy employees is city, steny hoyer, jim clyburn, joe biden's office reached out and gave us a statement. she clearly has some support, and she is showing no indication she's going to be stepping down to appease the sanders supporters. >> >> host: and yet there's one quote i'd love to have you elaborate, it's from a democratic senator supporting hillary clinton. there have been a lot of meetings about what color plate do we deliver debbie wasserman-schultz's head on. can you touch on that? >> guest: yeah. that's, basically, the sacrifice that they're offering. these are clinton supporters, so these are not -- there's only one sanders supporter in the senate, and that's jeff merkley. these sources are clinton backers, and that, as you mentioned, that, quote, came from a senator who is a clinton

backer who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the talk. so there have been a lot of discussions, and when we contacted the dnc, they certainly were not disputing that those conversations have taken place. we're not sure if they've taken place directly with debbie wasserman schultz, but we got the sense they definitely had heard about them, and they are clearly, debbie wasserman schultz -- who has taken criticism from a number of quarters, including from her own party since she was tapped by president obama in 2011 -- she's been a survivor, she's been a fighter, and she's clearly fighting to keep her job. she does not want her head on that plate. >> host: what role, what public role will she play in philadelphia this july? >> guest: well, traditionally, the party chair opens up the convention and has a huge role on what's going on, whether that's on the platform and speakers and working with the nominee, and one of the concerns

that was expressed to us is can you imagine her opening up the convention, certainly if the convention were right now, she could get booed, there could be chaotic scene that they want to avoid, of course. so it's very interesting. today also after we ran our story, bernie sanders' campaign was asked whether she should stay on, he was suggesting she should step down now. sanders himself has said if he becomes president, he does not want her to continue as chair. he also has endorsed debbie wasserman schultz's primary opponent. there's no love lost right now between the sanders campaign and debbie wasserman-schultz. >> you've pointed to a couple of examples, but why so much acrimony aimed at her? >> guest: well, i think it's how she's handled a few things where there were a number of democrats, including senate minority leader harry reid who was upset at the chaotic scene

of the sanders supporters who were very, very upset at the establishment for how they did certain votes in informed. and they want -- in nevada. they wanted sanders to come out and condemn any violence. there wasn't severe violence, but certainly there was a lot of commotion, and people were very, very upset. what happened was sanders backed his supporters, and he didn't condemn violence or chastise his supporters s. and debbie wasserman schultz expressed disappointment with that s and she also on twitter fired back at sanders' supporters. and that has been the tone of the campaign, the tone of the party right now where the republicans actually appear more unified than the democrats, and who would have thought that would have been the case a month or two months ago. so it's all about party unity because steve, as you know, you know, the party that's not unified usually loses in presidential election years, and they have to get unified one way or the other. this is going to be a test of

both debbie wasserman schultz and hillary clinton as well as, perhaps, joe biden and barack obama who may have to get involved to broker some type of peace agreement between hillary clinton and bernie sanders. they clearly -- after everyone votes in the last primary/caucus date june 14th in washington, d.c., democrats want it to end there. they want sanders to bow out after that because hillary clinton will have clinched if you count the super delegates, but the sanders campaign says, wait a minute, super delegates don't vote until the convention, so we have every right to go. we shall see. >> host: and this is the headline, the dems discuss dropping debbie wasserman schultz as the party chair. the reporting of the hill newspaper reporters including alexander bolton and bob cusack, who's joining us on the phone. thank you for being with us. >> guest: thanks, steve. >> donald trump is in san diego, california, friday. we'll bring you his campaign

event ahead of the june 7th primary live at 5 p.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ >> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states -- [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] >> this sunday night on "q&a," u.s. senate historian betty coed talks about events in senate history and the work her office does.

>> i came in june of 1998 as a newly-minted senate historian. my colleagues, dick baker and don ritchie, said to me, oh, it's going to be nice and quiet. we have an election coming up. you'll have lots of time to settle in and get comfortable. within a few weeks the house decided to impeach bill clinton, and we got very busy very quickly and had to do a good deal of research on impeachment trials. the senate, the senate leaders at that time, trent lott and tom daschle, really wanted to follow historical precedent as much as they could. >> sunday night at 8 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> on june 23rd the united kingdom will decide whether to remain in the european union. wednesday a british parliamentary committee considered the implications of that decision on scotland. this is just over two hours.

[inaudible conversations] >> order, order, and welcome -- [inaudible] scotland and the european union referendum, and we're very grateful we've got john withered ward from the -- [inaudible] -- john edward from the campaign in scot 4r57bd. i'm not going to give you an opening statement because we haven't had a lot of time, but tell us why you believe it's in scotland's interest that the u.k. remains a member of the european union. >> sure, thank you. very simply, it's my contention and our contention that both scotland and the united kingdom are safer, stronger and better off staying united in the european union simply because we've been part of the system for the last 43 years. the networks, the protections, the rights, the opportunities we've built up over that time, some of which are almost invisible in terms of the

virtual element of them, are extremely important. i was speaking to a a food and drink -- [inaudible] last night, and every person in the audience stressed the importance of geographical indication in terms of the recruitment to staff, in terms of the produce in the markets they dealt with, but also in terms of standards and quality markings that they thought were crucial to their business. i find that same message across every aspect of scottish life including those more marginalized, who realize there are rights and responsibilities. >> grateful. and i'll try to put this as gently as possible, but, you know, what we've observed thus far from the supporters of the remain campaign is perhaps what we could see more of an emphasis of the risks of exit. i think -- [inaudible] are familiar with some of the things and the tone of some of the claims that are getting made by the remain campaign in terms

of the scottish referendum -- [inaudible] are we going to do this differently in scotland? >> that's certainly been our intention. i made a name for myself back in february coining the expression project cheer because we were very determined we weren't going to be going on the attack. definitely playing ball, not the man, if you like, because i don't see any reason for us to go negative. yes, there are all sorts of economic arguments that stack up, and it would seem at least from the international bodies and other bodies that we hear from that everyone's out of step except -- [inaudible] at the moment in terms of thinking we should stay in. but for me, it's the, the positives are all there in terms of cooperation, engagement, meeting joint opportunities, dealing with common threats. so there's no need to go into a attack. and, of course, it's slightly harder to do so when you don't have a white paper on the other side to pick holes in.

there's no manifesto, blueprint for what leave will look like. for us, it's simply a case of stressing what we have at the moment, reminding everybody how much of a role the united king has in europe, how much scotland is part of that rather than being some us against them argument. >> so taking from this there's an attempt from the main campaign within scotland to try and every size a much more positive cam pan than -- campaign than what we've observed so far. and in response to that, could you talk just a little bit about what the relationship between the remain campaign in scotland with the national campaign and all the other groups -- [inaudible] when it comes to this and involves the u.k. government in a particular key role in terms of giving information -- [inaudible] how does the remain campaign in scotland fit in with all these other activities and campaigns? >> well, we're part of the

designated lead campaign u.k.-wide, britain stronger. but we recognized late last year when it was clear that the referendum was coming soon enough that a campaign run purely from one capital city would not suit the nations and reaches of the united kingdom. and this is as much true of northern ireland and wales as it is of scotland. so we set up a dedicated office in scotland, and the campaign spokesman, we took somebody from the vetted together in the no thanks campaign to be our grass roots campaign and the idea of reminding people that scotland was probably more attuned to issues of a referendum than the other part of the united kingdom and more politicize inside that respect. and we didn't -- well, will wasn't any need to get too party political. so i don't think there's any desire on behalf of the parties to get party political. so we deliberately set up an

advisory group that had no politicians on it, trade unionists, academics, others from civil society so that we would be talking, if you like, over or around the political parties, direct these people in talking about issues that affect them. obviously, each of the political parties in scotland with the exception of u.k., the leaders or the parties themselves are supporting of remaining, and they've all indicated they will be doing their own level of campaigning starting with the scottish elections a couple of weeks ago. i know there's a debate tomorrow morning. we're quite happy to dovetail with them, but we didn't expect to shoe horn political parties into places they didn't want to be. >> opening questions, we just had the scottish and general election, and that's come some six weeks before we are going to the polls for the referendum. do you think scotland is now sufficiently warmed up for this debate, and do you detect a sense of or energy and excitement about the upcoming

european referendum vote? [laughter] is there more that needs to stimulate some interest? >> yeah. i mean, having worked in scotland or europe for 20 years, i'm not sure there's ever that much enthusiasm to be seen. but i think we always knew that until the scottish elections were out of the way, then we wouldn't see the political leaders and parties talking about this subject in isolation. and, yes, i can understand some people thought it was going to -- [inaudible] but actually i think six weeks, seven weeks is quite a long time to talk about in most people's lives isn't in their top ten list of priorities. i'm fairly comfortable we'll have plenty of time to get round about can -- about the issues. europe tends tock put as a side issue rather than education and health and employment and everything else. >> thank you. john stevenson. >> thank you.

we follow the polls, and we're always interested in what they've got to say. and there is a view that suggests that, actually, scotland more enthusiastic than the rest of the united kingdom is. from your experience, would you concur with that? >> yes, to an extent. certainly, some of the polls we've seen have said something along those lines. we're not taking that for granted. it's been my experience in the past and during this campaign that the narrative about europe different than scotland. i was once held up in a previous job for saying scotland wasn't more pro-european, it was less anti. but there's some truth to that. some of the issues central to campaign down here really don't ring true with scottish audiences because, if nothing else, it reminded people that sovereignty lies in various places. it lies in london, it lies in nato, it lies wherever we choose to share it.

so, certainly, in the many town hall meetings and debates and functions i've spoken to in the last few months, there hasn't been the same kind of antagonism i detect in the discussion that somehow the language of wanting a country back or something, we were misguided or deceived back many in 1973, that hasn't come across at all. not to say that people are outrageously euro-fanatic any more than i am -- >> you don't hi the recent scottish elections have changed that? >> i don't sense it, no -- >> i don't want to dwell on it. >> no. >> you yourself have said scotland could have a decisive impact on this referendum. given the population of scotland compared to the rest of the united kingdom, would it really not have to be an austrian-style election? >> indeed. it might well be an austrian-style election. as i say, if you follow the

polls too carefully, you'd be a very nervous person on either side of this campaign at the moment. so we recognize that, one, there's a slightly more politicized part of the united kingdom, turnout will be higher in some parts, and it was true that we could hopefully get somewhere in the region of a two-thirds to one-third vote yes, then that could be a substantial amount of votes on one side when you think of all the different regional varieties that we have both between wales, northern ireland, london and the other parts of england. >> but if scotland were to go two-thirds to one-third but yet the results came from england that actually resulted in an out vote, how would scotland take to that? >> i think that would be for scotland to decide on the 24th of june. we've only got one vote ahead of us, and that's this one. [inaudible] >> thank you.

>> just before -- [inaudible] obviously, the second circuit's been raised, there's a prospect and at least not a possibility, shall we phrase it like this, that scotland might be up against its national, collective will if the u.k. wants to leave. has the campaign in scotland got any view on that? is this something you'll be use anything the campaigning, and what is your response from the ministers and those in the scottish national party? >> our only response to that is it just reminds scottish people that every single vote in this referendum matters. if they thought it was a simple binary vote, that they need to remember that it could have quite a decisive influence on the vote. and, of course, the idea of somebody being dragged in a direction they didn't want to go works both ways. it may be large parts of england should london, scotland or,

wales and northern ireland seat yes, large parts of -- [inaudible] so it works both ways. for us it's simply a case of if you think it matters to you, make sure you vote. >> you're aware, of course, during the e.u. referendum, built as it was then, an amendment suggested that it would require each of what was referred to as a family of unions, the full u.k. nations to all vote in favor of leaving the european union before the collective u.k. decided to leave. is that something you would find as an attractive prospect? >> no, that really hasn't come up at all, and i think that's mainly because we're talking about, as i say, a one-off, binary vote, a yes or a no, a remain or a leave. if you start to put qualifications in about nations and regions, could you say if all of england voted leave but

london voted remain, if all the nations were to leave, this is all sorts of permutations. you know? but -- and there's no cutoff percentage like there was for the 1979 referendum. is so we don't -- it's not an issue that's come up in people's minds. it's more about the basic principle. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> supplement question. the initial question was is there a fervor, an excitement about this, but clearly it doesn't seem to be. what are you hopes and aspirations, what do you hope in term oses of -- terms of number of people? >> i mean, obviously, well north of 50%. but we're realistic about it. i think it helps that it's in high summer, it helps that it is before the school holidays come, and we'd like to see up in the 60s. but i think that does partly depend on the enthusiasm, the energy of the more politicized people in scotland as well. i don't know to what extent we

can rely on party activists who just spent a grueling couple of months running a scotland -- [inaudible] campaign will only come out and start again. that's why we've been building up a group of volunteers separate from that, to be ready for this process. it ought to be high. i mean, as i say, if you can get talking about issues actually in a nonpart political way -- nonparty political way, as it was to the learning disability lines yesterday or talking to the food and drink group or the chambers tomorrow, once you start talking about regional issues and select issues there that affect people in their day-to-day life rather than these huge constitutional issues of brexit or whatever, people immediately get engaged. i'd like to see we can keep that going for a month. >> thank you. margaret. >> thank you, chair. my question is a very financial contribution. and the u.k. is a significant

contributor to the e.u. how is the e.u. responding to the argument that if the u.k. leaves the e.u., then the government would have more money to spend and would be able to make its own decisions about how it was spent? >> well, that has a few assumptions behind it, one of which is the u.k. government would prioritize the same spending as the e.u. does collectively in areas like agriculture which may not be the case. indeed, that was speculated on last night at the food and drink event. there's also an element that a lot of the research funding in other areas is matched funding, so it levers twice as much money out. so you wouldn't get that same double effect. and also there's the sense that this is something scotland benefited from in the past, that the collective european budget identified the areas that needed development, the former coal and steel areas, the islands, wales,

liverpool, so on. and there was an element of redistribution in that, i make no apologies for that. anybody who thinks they spend all their income tax and get nothing back for it would think the same about the e.u. contribution. but i think it was the cbi who put a figure of manager like ten pounds back for every one pound you put in in terms of research, joint innovation working. so i don't think it's a purely empirical game at all and, of course, at least per capita, we're nowhere close to being the highest contributors. >> i think, interestingly, the u.k. receives a rebate, but that's actually funded by other -- [inaudible] on behalf of scotland, we make a smaller contribution than does england or the u.k. as a whole, but we make a higher contribution than norb ireland and wales -- northern ireland and wales. >> yeah, so it's split -- >> [inaudible] >> and always has.

i mean, when i first arrived in brussels in '94, the islands partnership and others had been very, very e -- effective in terms of maximizing european funding, and it's remains the case since then. >> okay. scotland stronger than europe -- [inaudible] for every pound the u.k. puts into euro and gets ten pounds back, what is that claim based on that? >> that's a figure that came -- i think that was from the cbi. we've always made a point on putting note figures on any of our documentation separate from the campaign, and that was based partly on research and innovation, partly on the impact that structural funds and social funds have in terms of regeneration and other aspects of, you know, the food markets markets -- [inaudible] so it was simply just an economic calculation based on what the trait of the single market does for the united kingdom. >> okay.

i've got one more question. i mean, you've told us the main reasons you think scotland would be better off if the u.k. remains within the e.u., so what do you think would be the key risks if the u.k. as a whole votes to leave? >> well, it's the uncertainty. if back in september 2014 we had a very clear white paper of alternative future for scotland in the referendum, and people had a clear choice on their hands in the status quo of the white paper. we have no be equivalent at this moment. and i know perhaps the gentleman who will follow me this afternoon will say, well, we're not going to give away any secrets to the opposition, but people deserve to know what it is we aim to do. and if the wto are saying they're still negotiating on the e.u.50 and they haven't even gotten round to the countries who joined 10, 15 years ago, then there's clearly going to be a delay in areas like that. we have no idea in terms of the

rebate and other aspects of this, we have no idea in terms of the currency weighting. and we're being asked to assume that it will all be fine when the point that we're trying to make is we've got all the advantages already. we have the advantages that norway has, but we also have a say. we have the advantage that switzerland has, but we also have our services included in that pretrade area. and it's reminding peopling the common market's a lot more than just the pretrade area. the services good for capital movement is something much more fist skated. and -- sophisticated. and it is difficult because you're talking about a political system that has never existed before and does not exist anywhere else. so when people try to paint it as super state, they're assuming it's like the united states of america, or they're assuming it's like the united kingdom. it's not a sovereign country. it has no aspirations to be so. but it is a unique type of body, and it's reminding people because it's unique, you will really note when it's not there anymore. the level of cooperation that

exists between disability groups, between educational groups, between small retailers, the idea because only one in ten trade outside of the u.k. somehow that their supply chains and staffing chains aren't affected by e.u. membership as well just doesn't bear, bear closer consideration. >> one of the segments of society you mentioned there was we have our faith as being part of e.u. however, one of the arguments of the other party is and the scot cannish government is, unfortunately, we don't get -- a. [inaudible] as we would like because we have the u.k. government speaking on our behalf. at a lot of the meetings. and, in fact, recently where the minister, the u.k. minister couldn't -- [inaudible] and instead of him asking to reserve -- [inaudible] it ended up being someone from the house of lords speaking on behalf of the u.k. government

and the scottish government -- [inaudible] somebody with the expertise to head up the meeting that day and make decisions on behalf of the whole u.k.. >> well, i mean, that's all up to the u.k. government. this was discussed at the time of devolution when team came over to brussels before the white paper was published. what i would say is that all aspects of scottish society and the economy have always been extremely influential in brussels in terms of getting their mission i a cross to the elected members and the other member states as well. yes, when you get to the final decision making point in the council of ministers, that might be true. but, of course, a lot of power has shifted to the european parliament since then, and there you have an equal vote. but also in terms of the drafting of legislation, the consultation and the agreement between member states, a lot of that is done informally, and scotland has always been very good at it. so informally, the network is there.

the nature of the formal relationship is a matter for the united kingdom. >> in a previous session you spoke to some of the sectoral interests that have a real stake in the outcome of the referendum, union, business organizations, education -- are you planning to work with these sectors to inform them about the benefits of the remain campaign? i think we have something about a debate involving agricultural interests, and they were finding it very difficult to source -- [inaudible] cruster if chope was going to assist them with that, we'll visit with christopher in a minute, but is there any plans to have these conversations with -- >> we already have, i mean, since we put our campaign team together at the end of last year before the renegotiation and the firing gun was starts starting gun was fired on the referendum, we were already speaking to business representation bodies and others.

and then we've continued that since then. so we've been, you know, i've spoken to the scdi, i've spoken to all sorts of other bodies. as i said, i'm down in the borders tomorrow, oil and gas in a couple of weeks, all over the place. so we're just, we're trying to stimulate and encourage as many discussions as possible across sectors n. some cases it's direct debate, in some cases it's is simply a can conversation with their membership because they've chosen for one reason or another not to show a hand in the referendum. but i'd say almost all of our discussions are with the general public or representative groups. they're not a political discussion, if you like, at all. >> thank you. christopher chope. >> can i ask what the risks are if we remain in the european union? >> i can't think of any off the top of my head because, you know, i've seen how scotland as part of the united kingdom has operated within european union

for the last 0 years. i've seven -- 20 years. i've seen scottish jurists, i've seen scottish officials at the top of the commission, and i always think we've played a pretty good game. i don't see that continued membership would present any further threats to us than might have been per seethed up -- perceived up until now. those who believed the ever-closer union in the treaties actually referred to a single state rather than closer work between the peoples of europe can be disabused of that that is fact now, i think. those who thought the euro is a threat can be disabused of that threat for the time being at least until the government here changes its mind. so i don't see any obvious threats to us. >> [inaudible] even more -- [inaudible] than i thought was possible. [laughter] can i just suggest some possible threats then? one is that the european union takes on more members, and those

members will be primarily poorer countries than scotland. and as a result, scotland's -- the contributions that scotland get from the european union although they are net crib's to the. the -- contributors to the european union, they will getless back because the funds will need to support albania, turkey and so on. isn't that a risk? >> in the case of albania, they're not exactly an enormous country x we've been putting a lot of infrastructure work into albania as well. that was true in 19 -- >> so you don't see any risk that the amount of money that scotland currently gets from the european union would be diminished as a result of expansion of the european union? >> it has collectively reduced over the time as other countries have come in that are poorer than those parts of scotland. and the islands would say, as

they did at the time, we accept the fact we are now no longer the poorest part of europe, and if you're going to redistribute the money to where it's best used, redistribute it there. >> that's a risk, but you discount it because you say it's a desirable risk. can i put another proposition to you? as you say, you've been talking to the food and drink community in scotland. the scottish government, backed by the scottish people, wanted to bring in minimum price saving for alcohol. and that was the democratic decision of the scottish government. and that was dismissed by the european court of justice. now, how does that fit in with scottish aspirations for control over their own destiny? having a democratic decision overturned by a court of justice which is supreme in europe over even the -- >> well, it's supreme in those

aspects of european law that the proposed minimum pricing covered. by choosing to do it in the way they did, it was referred not by faces of unelected judges, but by the scotch and whiskey organization of eden door row, as was there right. and the court decided it was perhaps not the best according to the treaty which the kingdom signed and, therefore or, passed it back to the court in eddin borough where it currently decides. so the opinion of the scottish people has not been overturned at all. >> not yet. >> no, it hasn't. >> but doesn't this show that the european cause of justice is, indeed, people and that any decision that the european court of justice takes in the future which is against the interest of scotland is one which the scots won't be able to have any control? >> only in areas where we, the member states, we, the united

kingdom have chosen to give the e.u. competence, and that is the limited -- the whole of the treaties is it limits to the ones we decide to give them. and we have a veto in giving them rights. so if we choose to give them no further -- >> but the european court of justice to interpret what those competencies are, you would accept that's what the judges have said, and that's why, for example, the european court of justice has ruled, given an opinion to the effect that it will be against european union jurisprudence for the european union to accede to the commission on exhume rights despite that being a treaty obligation. the european court of justice has said they interpret european union law and that it will be wrong for the european union to -- i give that an example. >> i will take that example.

that was done on the basis that the e.u. wasn't yet a single body. >> but that, but that's -- the reason they, for what they said was they did not wish the european court of justice to be subordinate to the european cause of human rights. and isn't that the whole issue sneer if you are a proud nation, as scotland is a proud nation, why doesn't it want to go on its own? and if it left, if we in the united kingdom leave the european union, then the scots -- [inaudible] have control over scottish fishing particularly? which they've lost? would they be able to have control over scottish agriculture? they'd be able, for example, to charge fees in the scottish universities and constitutions in higher education. they'd be able to charge students from the e.u. fees and that might be able to increase the opportunity for scots to be able to access higher education

which they're being squeezed out of at the moment because of lack of resources. so already all sorts of benefits that would actually come directly to the scottish people in the scots and the rest to have united kingdom vote to leave. >> well, i simply don't agree. i mean, i've worked with the steel commission the campbell commission among some of the other bodies that looked at extending the powers of the scottish government, and i'd rather have a cross-party attempt to increase the powers than doing it by the stroke of a pen. but in issue of the jurisdiction of the court, the court literally can only cover or those areas which we, we the people of europe decide to give it. and that's what it's done. it hasn't sought to interpret things beyond it. if the treaty is badly written, that is not the fault of the court of justice, that's the fault of the prime minister and the other people who signed the treaty in the first place. >> -- not going to be able to -- [inaudible conversations] >> regular order. led mr. edward finish.

>> i was just to the point -- i used to visit luxembourg a lot. it has its own language. in its own language on a wall in the muddle of luxembourg is the national motto, and it's we want to remain what we are. luxembourg is a proud nation as isal baena, as is portugal, the idea that they are giving up national identity just bunt bear any relation to the understanding i have of your. >> well, that doesn't fit in with the evidence we've received, for example, from the scottish fishermen. they resent the fact that control over scottish fishing ground rest with the uniyear -- european union rather than with the scottish people. if we leave the european union, absolute control over scottish fishing grounds will rest not with the u.k. parliament, but with the scottish parliament as, indeed, will scottish

agriculture, two very important parts of the scottish economy. would you not accept that is one of the bonuses that will come when we leave? >> well, i did hear a voice from scottish agriculture who wants that to happen. we can only listen to the people who are experts in their field. in terms of fisheries, absolutely, i accept a lot of people have different view. there is not is same view on the west coast of scotland. of course; they do have to bear in mind who their market is, and we're not the ones eating the fish. so if we want to be trading this fish at the best possible terms, then we want to be part of a market which is binary. and it's the nearest, freshest market we have x. we have got the areiningment with them -- arrangement with them already. why we would come out and seek to arrange the same rangement -- >> right. i think you made a link that also -- >> [inaudible] point about students? >> i'll happily answer the point

about students. >> [inaudible] ten more minutes with mr. edwards. >> i have yet to meet a student or a student body or a university that thinks that they would like to extend european students to be cash cows in the way that they see other students are. they don't see that to be a desirable thing at all. and, of course, if you go and speak to any school in scotland increasingly as students are filling out forms, they are applying to universities elsewhere in mainland europe where, of course, they will receive the same benefit as e.u. students receive in scotland. >> thank you. just to be fair in light of the questions mr. chope has been asking, we did ask the sectors to come to this a couple weeks ago x i think what hay said to us and i think the problem mr. edwards is reemphasizing was there was a strong view that they want to remain in the european union -- [inaudible] and, again, university of

scotland more or less gave us that same type of evidence. i think -- [inaudible] we have spoken to these sectoral interests who ghei us quite detailed oral evidence last session. a couple of questions for christy -- [inaudible] >> yes. and i want to ask -- [inaudible] you've spoken about kind of workers' rights, things in more general ways. but for the man in the street or for the family, you know, in the street, what are the tangible benefits of the e.u. to families in scotland? >> well, i mean, you can take it from the moment you yet up in the morning until the moment you go to bed. it's the air you breathe walking to school, the water you drink, the amount of time your mother or father has to take off work to look after you when you're born: it's the amount of hours you have to work in a week over 17 weeks. it's the food quality, the nutritional quality of the food

you're eating, the labeling, the ability to have networks and partnerships with other schools, other universities across europe. it's the ability to travel cheaply in a deregulated air system. it's the networks in terms of rail and other transport across europe. it's literally, this is one of points we have to try and get across. europe is not a stand-alone constitutional issue like the u.k. or devolution. it is a matter of domestic policy in all sort of areas. at least those in which we've granted competence. people need to realize that it cut affect their daily lives in a way that is positive, and at least if they don't think it's positive, they have legal redress in that front. again, one of the unique elements about the european union is it's based entirely on the rule of law. so every one of the 500 million citizens have the same equal access to the law. >> thank you. >> just one more.

i just wanted to ask you a little bit about the uniform -- [inaudible] from the prime minister. and how they have been mixed at best at least in the public eyes. how do you think that affects scotland? >> we've taken a pretty sanguine view of the reforms simply on the ground that for us as a non-party campaign they were, as i said, the starting pistol. we knew this retch dumb was coming -- referendum was coming, indeed, since james goldsmith was advocating for it 25 years ago. we've known there was going to be a referendum of some form or another. that was the decision one political party took to initiate that referendum. there haven't been many questions on the doorsteps about it sense then in terms of the dee. it's not for me to comment whether it's too much or too little. it has been in some way been useful to counter some of the perceptions that people have

that we will still somehow be lured into things we don't want to be a part of like bailouts in the eurozone or a single european state. i was being challenged only last week on a single european navy and army, and at least you can point to that text now and say, well, i don't think you ever meant a single country. and if there were people like the ones i used to work for 20 years ago with whom that was an as prayings after the war -- aspiration after the war, they readily accepted it was never going to happen that way because they never expected europe to be so broad. so the idea of a deep, single european state was never going to happen. in one way, the text is quite useful because it shows there are limits, but if you're a federalist, you'll find it disappointing because it makes britain to a certain extent a bit to the side. sweden, denmark and others have -- [inaudible] so it is what it is. we're not campaigning on the basis of the deal. we're campaigning on the bigger issue of staying in.

>> so do you think the deals that were made are going to be largely forgotten by the 24th of june or are they going to form part of the decision making for the people of scotland? >> well, they will to a certain extent. when the issue of current i comes up, it is, obviously, important whether the single currency is a prospect, whether bailouts are needed in other countries are a prospect or not. there are people who wonder about the sovereignty and souper state issue, but i'd be pretending if i said it was a strong issue in people's mind in any of the debates i've been to. because they sea it as a pure -- see it as a purely party political issue. >> just an additional question really. i know we talked about immigration and sovereignty being key issues in england. what do you think the key issues are in scotland? >> i think it's, if you like, it's almost connect it. it's the acknowledge bement that, with apologies to -- [inaudible] who have withdrawn their application, we are the

northwest frontier of european union and, therefore, as has always been the case in our history, to be a trading nation whether it's visible or in terms of services or capital, you need to have as many opportunities. and that's not now the case -- [inaudible] that's the case of free market arrangements across europe. and, you know, that's true. you go to university, people are talking about -- [inaudible] but they're also talking about their potential work opportunities abroad. so they see the other 27 member states as their backyard. they don't see it as i'm going to abroad to work. it's just i'm going somewhere else. in the same way they would think about it as studying. and, again, partly because of devolution we recognize there are different stages and different places for our, where our -- if sovereignty's the world, where our sovereignty rests, where our responsibility rests. we change our identities quite comfortably in that. i think it really is that part

of -- that sense that we're part of the system, something that we're quite proud of and, actually, some famous scots have been quite heavy hi responsible for it -- heavily responsible for it from the beginning. and, therefore, you know, we see the value of it. we don't feel the threat. yes, it may be true that migration is less a threat in scotland than other parts of the european union,, but some of the terrifying arguments that have been used in the campaign haven't resounded at all. >> thank you. i can -- [inaudible] it's pretty hard when you're not aware of the opposite case. we know that the u.k. government attempted to find the options that may be available to the u.k. if we do heave the e.u., and i think they're roughly characterized -- [inaudible] the norwegian model, that membership to the -- [inaudible] there's a bilateral arrangement as the canadian mold, negotiate our own deal with them, and then this is the wto auction which,

again, you recognize these as the options that might be available to the u.k., and what impact would either of these models have on scotland if we were to leave and -- [inaudible] >> well, i think inevitably any of them has a downside whether the downside is delay or the downside is a loss of voice. the norwegian model manifestly requires acceptance. if you want to remain part of free movement, a part of the single market, you have to accept the regulations they're on because you have to import and export goods and the same standards. so you would accept that, but youd be taking out of the decisions being made. if sovereignty is your primary issue, you'd actually relinquish some sovereignty and keep the same regulations. on the wto side, they're still struggling to implement the arrangements for the e.u. 5

which changed 20 years ago. and so they're not even at the point of having full negotiations completed for the e.u. 28. so the idea we could quickly turn around after article 50 was started, an arrangement with the wto is interesting. and even then within the w, o there are all sorts of restrictions on the use of state aid and others as well, which are issues that have come up in this referendum. and that leaves other models like the swiss or canadian mold which is fine if you can negotiate a deal as good as the one you're giving up. but, i mean, if you take the swiss, for example, yes, the swiss have negotiated a free trade agreement with china. switzerland overnight dropped 80% of its tariffs when that deal came into force, china didn't drop any. and that is the nature of world politics and world economics. so i don't see any of the three options that make life look better for us than those options we have at the moment. >> i know we're running out of

time, i just want ask -- [inaudible] i think what we're having difficulty in i a tempting to identify are what are the particular scottish issues. the big debates we hear at west minister all the time, the sort of key three things of sovereignty, trade and immigration. >> yeah. >> and immigration seems to be the case that most of the brexit campaign seems to be -- [inaudible] the arguments for trade and, you know, seem to be diminishing and sovereignty, obviously, already is a an emotional case. what do you make of these three big themes that seem to be the -- [inaudible] is there anything particular scottish that you think the case would inject, try and maybe inject some more enthusiasm and energy into the campaign of scotland? >> well, i think out of these three the one that our focus has been on is trade and the economy. and that's not to say you will be so much worse off after leave, but to say we can keep

doing what we've always done, you know? we're a small, quite peripheral part of europe, but we've always traded successfully, we've always contributed intellectually to the development of europe, and this is no reason why we couldn't continue to do that. and that's, if you like, where we're trying to hit strand of positivity which is to say we've nothing to fear from this. this is a system that we are part of, and our relatively small size doesn't necessarily have any impact to influence matters. to walk away from the table seem to be a an admission for defeat which is unusual both for scotland and the united kingdom. why not use all three successfully? >> well, thank you. we're right at 3:00 which is the time the session's got to end. maybe not heard from the re-- [inaudible] >> no, i don't think so. i mean, i think we've always taken the view that, as i say, if you like goes beyond party

politics. and one of the things we've tried to avoid doing is the sort of he said/she said. the one thing i'm finding increasingly curious about the whole thing is that, as i said, they're all out of step except -- [inaudible] and we're starting to get a sense where everybody agrees with us, but they all must be wrong. and i think there's a point when people are making their decision, they've got to ask themselves how it is they actually trust. >> on that point, you referred to norway, and you've referred to switzerland. none of those countries want to join the european union. >> no. >> despite the disadvantages which you say that they are under because they are not members of the european union. and that's why a lot of people say, and i think even our trade industry minister has said if we started from scratch, he wouldn't wish to join the european union. isn't that the true fact? if we weren't in the european union, nobody would want to join

this old-fashioned body? >> well, it's not which she rottic and old-fashioned. it's volume of trade going at the time. japan, united states, china's is going up. but, of course, switzerland only recently started to join some of the u.n. bodies. so switzerland has always had a slightly different view of the world. my contention is that this is not something that britain is a johnny come lately to and somehow these dastardly 27 countries have all got a plan against us. we're part of it. in fact, the trade aspect of the european union moved directly in your direction, much to the chagrin of some of the other member states. so i don't see why now we've got the situation of a europe that serves our purpose, we'd simply walk away from it. >> thank you very much for your time and answering all those questions. i'm sure we'll be seeing you much in the course of the next few weeks. >> i'm afraid so, yes.

>> thank you. mr.[laughter] >> mr. harris, welcome to the committee. and it's very good to see you. once again, i think you know quite a few people around the table here: we'll ask you for an opening statement, and you could probably include -- [inaudible] maybe telling us as long as you want why scotland should vote to leave the european union. >> i think for many of the same