about our on these home modifications to so many homes that are not modifiable, what does that mean? many people are going to have to move. as we are building are we building senior housing? are we building age friendly communities that include affordable housing? >> she knows more than i do. >> a couple things. they are building prototype homes that are house for all ages. you put in a grab bar in a restroom, need not be a deterrent for younger people for that home but you don't have to put the grab bar in home. you build a wall strong enough

to hold a grab bar to do it. there are all kinds of things that can be done that are perfectly suitable for younger families but they create a home that is not harmful to the interests of elderly people later on. there are people working on the floor plans to do that to create that kind of structure and people who talk about being the city for all ages so you can build a park, for example, that is great for children, but it has worked out equipment, some pads that are safe for seniors to walk, other cities are doing that, chattanooga, denver, places where these are happening. ..

i saw a picture of the other day at a sidewalk with a telephone pole right in the middle of if so how do you take a person who's being pushed on the wheelchair along the sidewalk, you can't. we do crazy things in the way that we design our city so thoughtfulness and the way we build the city is a long and costly just thoughtful way of making the community is better for seniors, just one piece of your question. >> like to say that all of the rollouts in philadelphia aren't easy to get in and out of and up and down the steps in for older

adults to say it can be quite problematic. they have no sidewalks that drive three or 5 miles to get to the supermarket and then take it out. so for very different reasons these are both isolated. is it the most vulnerable and the poorest of course we should be concerned on the test that recognizes that with those resources that even those that have the resources, it is extremely expensive in many situations if you have resources well beyond your means or even not to go into some retirement communities that are not affordable.

the issue is to not wait until that moment and find out how there can be denser homes or even fill up our suburban areas and towns where there is a town center and mainstream. this is hard for all of us to think about thatproduct developers as well as public finance to think about as you said as though the sustainable communities and how there are communities for all ages because there will be a lot of seniors out there looking for a place to live happily. >> let me say one thing real quick.

i think they could play a major role. i know you've been working on some of the venues and assembling people and so forth. i see mike in the audience who was the secretary of policy development and research but how does one of the places along with hhs and other departments really take the lead here and offer some serious things and make a difference, things like that cdbg program that goes to localities, why can't a portion of that be designated to deal with senior transformations in the cities? you could instantly almost touch a thousand communities across the country with that. >> it may require some additional consultation but some of the money already exists it is just a matter of targeting is too depressing national need. the other point i would make as i've been amazed we don't see more uptake from both sides of

the aisle in both houses of congress because this is a looming pending problem and i can't imagine a congress personn who would be punished politically for doing the right thing by the senior population on this set of issues. it hasn't been framed properly. there haven't been initiatives to respond to but i think the country would quickly recognize this is an area for action we can get a lot of bipartisan support for. >> with you tha that i would lio introduce niki for closing remarks of the infrastructure w. will help us close. >> my job is to not keep you in your seats for too much longer. i want to get a few more credit to folks when you have an undertaking there are a lot of

people to think and we have been hard at work on it for a special thank you to to the vice president here who's been a leader in our effort and helped ground task force throughout the process to be fiscally sound and aware of the impacts the recommendations will be having and making them responsible on that. also, we try to practice what we preach and breaking down silos internally to work closely with the health policy team and kathryn whcatherine who leads ut effort to make sure the policy efforts are coordinated. bill mentioned in the introduction the economic security team this kind of response to the last two questions we were talking about how to get ahead of the questi question. i believe on june 9, the

commission for the personal savings will be issuing their report so please, tune in for that and we will address the equity issues as well. relevant to the topic that we discussed today. on the housing commission it really helps our process other senior policy process. one other thing i want to see the effort doesn't stop here. we are committed to this report into the recommendations we have released and many of you have been a part of the process to get up here, but the effort continues as we always say when the report comes out, we are halfway done. we have the advocacy work around the recommendations so please reach out to us to figure out

ways to advance here in all the work you're doing here in our bipartisan platforms. thank you for coming and staying overtime. [applause]

on american history tv saturday evening at six eastern on the civil war. sherman couldn't have agreed more by the time he captured in september 1864 his thoughts on the matter have fully matured. once again the rebel army had been defeated and another major city had fallen into still the confederates wouldn't give up so rather than continue the war against people, he would now wage war against property. >> todd gross on the general william tecumseh sherman, arguing that the march to the campaign was hard for rather than total war and that they were selected to diminish the southern result.

sunday at six on american artifacts take a tour with the majority leader mitch mcconnell viewing some of the oldest rooms like the republican leaders this week in a conference room office. >> i had the good fortunate to be here on august 28, 1963 when martin luther king made the i have a dream speech. i was here at this end of the model and he was on the brink of the memorial looking out of thousands and thousands of people but you knew you were in the presence of something really significant. >> they talk about the role of the presidents during the vietnam era. >> they anguished about the war every single day and that is not an overstatement. the calls either to or from the situation room often if tw haver 3:00 in the morning to see if

the carrier pilots had returned. >> h. w. brandis joined by the former aide tom johnson and alexander butterfield to explore the policies during the conflict monday afternoon at one eastern on real america a five part series on the 1975 church committee hearings to conduct the cia, fbi, irs and nsa. the testimony by the director william colby james adams and general lewallen from fbi informants and others. we are here to review the major findings of our investigation of fbi domestic intelligence including the program and others aimed at domestic targets. fbi surveillance from the law-abiding citizens and groups, political abuses of fbi intelligence in several specific cases of unjustified

intelligence operations. >> for the complete weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. in addition to the classes all over the planet i wish to be graduated into a world of peace, life and love but that's not the case. we all live in a fairytale but i guess the 1 percent does. this memorial day watch commencement speeches in their entirety offering encouragement to the class of 2016 from business leaders like the president michael powell at pepperdine university, president of oracle at the university of southern california command maria contreras-sweet, the administrator at whittier college. >> you can count on your self.

what makes you special, what distinguishes you from others in business we collect your unique value position figuring out yours is the key. >> at the university of alabama huntsville and barbara boxer of california berkeley and governor pence at indiana wesleyan university. >> to be strong and to be the courageous and to learn to stand for who you are and what you believe is a way that you've changed here and will carry into the balance of your life. >> vice president joe bide prest the university of notre dame, loretta lynch and president barack obama at rutgers university. >> is it any wonder that i'm optimistic throughout our history a new generation has reached up in the production of more freedom and more opportunity and more justice.

class of 2016, it is your turn now to shape the destiny as well as your own, so get to work. >> this morning of -- memorial day afternoon. the united kingdom will vote on june 23 whether to remain a part of the european union. earlier this week the house of commons scottish affairs committee held a hearing on the exit and what it would mean for scotland. this is about two hours and ten minutes. >> order, order. providing evidence from the campaign in scotland i ask you to give an opening statement because i don't have much time but you can include anything that you want to see in the

statement by telling us the a mr of the european union. >> it is our contention that they are safer and better and stronger in the european union simply because we have been part of this for the last 43 years. the opportunities that we built over that time are indivisible and are extremely important. every person in the audience stressed the importance of the education in terms of the recruitment to starve and the markets they dealt with but also in terms of the quality markings they thought were crucial to their business and i find every aspect of scottish life including those that are

realizing there are rights and responsibilities they get to their opinion. >> [inaudible] we could see another emphasis on the risks and how familiar they are with some of the things in the tone and the scottish referendum [inaudible] >> that has been our intention. i made a name for myself including the inspection because we were very determined we were not going to be going in on the attack.

there are all sorts of arguments that would stack up and it would seem the international bodies that we hear from the moment but for me the positives are all there in the cooperation engagement meetings dealing with common threats so there's no need to go into attack. and of course it is slightly harder to do so when you don't have a paper on the other side. there is no blueprint to what we all look likes of it i like so e of stressing what we have at the moment and reminding everybody how much of a role the united kingdom has in europe and how scotland is part of that. >> so they try to emphasize a much more positive campaign.

can you talk about the relationship between the campaign of scotland and all the other groups in terms of the information [inaudible] in that campaign spokesman to be

the grassroots organizer and somebody from the scotland campaign to be the media organizer. there wasn't any need to get the parties. they deliberately set up an advisory group that had no politicians, trade union in a society so that we would be talking. two political parties in scotland the leaders and the parties themselves are. they've indicated they will be having their own campaigning.

we tried to chew more than the political parties need. >> we just had the scottish and general elections and that six weeks before. do you detect a sense of energy and excitement to stimulate some interest? >> i've been working on europe and scotland for 20 years and i'm not sure. until they made sure the discussions were out of the way that we wouldn't see the leaders talking about the subject.

to bring it into the way it's a side issue. they are interested and there is a view to suggest they are more enthusiastic. in your experience would you concur with that? >> yes. they've said something along those lines, but it's been my experience in the past and during the campaign.

it flies on wherever we choose to share it so on that debate had spoken to in the last few months there hasn't been the same kind of antagonism that i detect in the discussion that somehow the language of wanting the country back.

[inaudible] >> i don't sense it, no. >> you said they could have a decisive impact given the population of scotland and in the united kingdom we didn't have to be in the skill titled for scotland. it's a slightly more politicized turnouts that would be higher in scotland if they get a one third vote yes.

>> [inaudible] we believe that it is ahead of us. [inaudible] this circumstance has been raised in this prospect up against the national collective will if they want to leave. is there any view about that, and what was your response to

this. it just reminds them that the referendum matters because it was a simple binary vote it could have an influence on the vote and of course the idea of somebody being dragged into the direction it works both ways it may be that the parts of england and scotland and wales vote yes and feel they are being dragged into the european union if they didn't feel they wanted to be there so it works both ways. if you think it matters to you, and we think it should, make sure you vote. >> in the bill as it was, would it require each -- is that

something you would find? we are talking about a one-off binary vote. if we start the qualifications could you say of all of england and they voted germane and there is no cutoff percentage in the referendum so there's no issues that have come up in peoples minds it's more about the basic principle. >> there's some excitement about

this because -- [inaudible] >> well over 50%. but we are realistic about it. i think it helps that it is before the schools that have come and we would love to see in the upper 60s but that is partly depend because i don't know to what extent we would rely on the party activists who just spent a couple months. it's separate to be party for that process they are talking to

the borders and the chambers once you start talking about regional issues and the collected issues there in their day-to-day life rather than the huge constitutional issues then people begin to get engaged so i would like to think we could keep that going for a month. >> my question is about the financial contribution. it may contribute to the eu. it was speculated on.

there's research areas so that letters twice as much money so you wouldn't get that same double effect and also this is something they benefited from in the past in terms of the funds it's the needs of the development and there was an element of redistribution. it's something like 10 pounds back to. it is again and at least per

capita nowhere close to the highest. it is funded by the others as well and on behalf of scotland you make a smaller contribution as a whole [inaudible] >> and it always has. when i first arrived in 94 there is a balanced partnership being very effective. >> scotland [inaudible] what is the claim based on?

>> that was from the cbi. we always made a point to putting the figures on for somebody else separate in the campaign, and that was based on the research innovation on the structural social funds in the generation and other aspects of the food markets, so it is an economic calculation based on the trade of the single market. >> one more question. is there any reason or what do you think would have been the key as they vote to leave? >> we ha have a very clear paper and they had their choice and

the status quo on the paper and i know perhaps the gentleman this afternoon will say we are not going to give any secrets away to the opposition but people deserve to know what it is we need to do and if they are still negotiating and haven't even gotten around for the countries that joined ten or 15 years ago then there will be a delay in the areas like that. we have no idea in terms of the rebate and we have no idea in terms of the currency waiting and we are being asked to assume a. we have the service is included in that area and i'm reminding people that it's more than just a free-trade area. the services are good for

capital movement and it's something much more sophisticated and it is difficult and i appreciate this because you're talking about a political system that doesn't exist anywhere else so when people try to paint it as a superstate or they are assuming it is like the united kingdom it's nothing like that. it has no aspirations to a. the level of cooperation exists in the disability groups and educational groups between the small retailers and the idea because of the trade outside of the uk somehow there are supply chains that are unaffected by the membership as well. >> one of the things of the

argument in the scottish government we don't get as much as we would like because we have the uk government speaking on our behalf. [inaudible] insta but i'm asking to resolve it ended up being someone from the house of lords speaking on behalf of the scottish government for someone to head up the meetings. >> this was discussed at the time when they came over before the white paper was published. what i would say it's all aspects of the society have been extremely influential in

brussels in terms of getting their message across to the elected members and other member states as well so when you get to the final decision. in the drafting lotus agenda consultation and agreement between member states. the organizations are you planning to work with these sectors for the benefits i think we have something about the agricultural interest that's difficult to source a.

before we made the negotiation and the government on the referendum we were speaking to the businesses and others and we continue that to some other bodies tomorrow and in a couple of weeks. we are trying to stimulate and encourage the discussions as possible across the sectors. in some cases because they've chosen for one reason or another

not to show a hand in the referendum. but almost all of the discussions are in the general public or representative groups. [inaudible] >> i can't think of any off the top of my head. it's how it was operated within the european union for the last 20 years. we always played a pretty good game and i don't see the continued membership of the present any further threats up until now. they referre refer to a single e rather than closing work between

the people of europe for that fact now. those that thought it was a threat for the time being until the government changes its mind so i don't see the threat. >> [inaudible] can i suggest a possible threats one is the european union takes on more members. the contributions they get. the regional funds would be going to support a.

in the case of albania it isn't exactly an enormous country and we've put more infrastructure work in a. of the amount they get from the european union would be diminished. and they would say if they do at the time we accept the fact it's in the poorest part of europe and it is best redistributed. >> [inaudible] the scottish government backed by the scottish people wanted to bring in the minimum pricing

outcomes and that was the democratidemocratic decision ofe scottish government does that fit ihow doesthat fit in with ts aspirations -- scottish aspirations in the decision for the cause of justice which is over even the scottish people. it was referred not by the basis of the unelected judges as a member to the court. it was perhaps not the best according to the treaty which the united kingdom signed and therefore it was back to the session to site and that's where

it currently resides so the opinion hasn't been overturned at all. it doesn't just show that the cause of justice is indeed a supreme. the united kingdom have chosen to give the eu, and the whole purpose of the legal treaty limits to the ones that we decided to give them. the call to justice.

the european cause of justice has ruled to give an opinion to the fact there is union jurisprudence for the european union to exceed on human rights despite that obligation in the treaty the european court of justice has said that the european union law it won't be long before the union exceeds. >> in the legal body it's not something that they want to believe people back that the reason they fought for what they said is that they didn't wish the european court of justice to be subordinate. isn't that the whole issue if you are a proud nation as scotland is a powerful nation, why doesn't it want to go on its

own and if we leave the european kingdom. they gave it over the scottish agriculture to charge the fees for the institutions in higher education and that is to increase the opportunities. the higher education would be down because of the lack of resources and that would come directly to the scottish people. the commission among some of the other bodies that extended the powers of the government and i would rather have a cross party constitutional intent than doing

it by the stroke of a pen so the jurisdiction of the court literally can only cover those areas which we the people of europe decide to give it and that's what it was. if the treaty is badly written thathat isn't the fault of the cause of justice, that is the fault of the prime minister and the other people that signed the treaty in the first place. >> [inaudible] to return to the point about the prioritization, i used to visit luxembourg a lot and it had its own language and in its own language in the middle of luxembourg is the matter is that wmatters thatwe want to remain . as is portugal and latvia but we are giving up sovereignty.

in the european union rather than the people if we leave the european union in absolute control over the scottish fishing grounds but for the scottish parliament and the scottish agriculture. would you not accept it's one of the bonuses that would come. >> a lot of people have a different view that isn't the same as the west coast of scotland. we do have to bear in mind of

the market. we are not the ones eating the fish so if we want to be trading this in the best possible turn then it's the nearest and freshest market that we have and we have the arrangement already and then we seek to renegotiate the same agreement that we have in the moment. >> [inaudible] >> it's all but ten more minutes. >> i have yet to meet a student body university that thinks they would like to extend the students to be cash cows in the way that other students are. the students are filling out encouraging to students from scotland to apply to the universities elsewhere as well as elsewhere in the united

kingdom. this would be fair to the questions that were being asked. it is re- emphasized that the strongest view they want to name it to accept the issues i think it is safe to say they've given quite detailed evidence the last session but a couple of questions. >> in this positive case you've spoken about workers rights more

generally what are the tangible benefits to the families in scotland? your mother or father have to take off work to look after you when you are born. the good qualities and the foode values into the labeling to have networks and partnerships with other schools in the inner cities in europe and the ability to travel cheaply and the regulated in the system is the network in terms of other transports across europe literally this is one of the points we have to try to get across like the uk or the evolutiodevolution and the domec

policy. it does affect their daily lives in the way that it is positive. they have the same equal access to the [inaudible] they've been mixed at best in terms of the public. what are your views and does anything affect scotland? >> we have taken a view of the performance simply on the ground for us as a nonparty campaign is a referendum was coming and

advocating 25 years ago that was the decision one political party to two initiate a referendum but there haven't been many questions on the doorsteps in terms of the deal. it's hard for me to comment on those that think it is too much or too little. it has in some ways been useful for some of the perceptions people have that we would somehow still being lured into things we don't want to be part of what a single european state. at least you can point to that now and say i don't think that we ever met a single country and the ones i used to work for 20 years ago that was an aspiration after the war they readily accepted them and it was never

going to happen that way because they never expected them to be so broad so the idea was never going to happen and the text is quite useful because it shows there are limits but if you are a federalist you would find it disappointing to a certain extent. they are campaigning on the basis of the deal and the bigger issue. >> the deals were made and largely forgotten the 24th of june or the decision-making for the people of scotland. >> when the issue of veterans he comes out with a.

i would be pretending if i said that it wasn't a strong issue in people's minds in the areas of debate because it's been a purely political issue. >> just a question talking about immigration and sovereignty what do you think the key issues are in scotland? >> it's almost like the conductivity of the periods to be a trading person in the nation whether it is visible trade or manufacturing a trading nation services or capital. you need to have as many opportunities and that is on the case of the free-market arrangements across europe. you go to the university people are talking about the potential

work opportunities abroad and you see the other member states in the backyard and not as i'm going abroad to work its just i'm going somewhere else and i think again in the devolution we recognize there are different stages and places where the sovereignty is and we change our identities quite comfortably now but it is that part of that sense of part of the system and something we are quite proud of and we are responsible for the beginning of the.

have they attempted to fight i think that it's across the model in the bilateral arrangement to negotiate the options to recognize these as the options that might be available. >> i think in inevitably, any of them have a downside whether it is delayed or a loss of voice. if you want to remain a part of

the movement and the regulations they are on the goods in the ofe same standards, you would accept that he would be taking yourself out where the decisions are made but if sovereignty is the primary issue it is an odd way to go. on the wto site. they are struggling to implement the arrangements that changed 20 years ago and so they are not even at the plaintif point of hg formed the negotiations so the idea that we could quickly turn around. even then there are some restrictions on the use of the state agency and others that have come up in the referendum. and that is the other model which is fine if you can

negotiate a deal as one you are giving up. overnight switzerland dropped their taxes into china didn't drop any because that is the nature of the world politics and economics. i don't see any of the options that make life better for us in the options we have at the moment. >> we have a difficulty in the case and the big debates that we have a further sovereignty and trade it seems to be the case

that seems to be diminishing and it is already an emotional case. is there anything in particular that they could inject for some more enthusiasm in scotland? >> the one that our focus has been on its trade in the economy and that isn't to say that you would be so much worse off that we could keep doing what we have always done. we are a small part of europe, that we have always traded successfully and contributed intellectually to the development and there is no reason we can't continue to do that. that is where we are trying to hit the strand of positivity with nothing to fear this is a system that we are part of in the geographical distance or the relatively small size it doesn't have any impact on our ability.

so to walk away from the table e would be an admission of defeat, which is unusual but for scotland and backing them we pride ourselves and have the commonwealth and europe. why not use all three successfully. >> [inaudible] >> i don't think so. i mean, we have always taken the view that if it goes beyond party politics, one of the things we try to avoid doing this but he said she said. the one thing i'm finding increasingly curious about the whole thing is we are starting to get the sends everybody agrees that we must be wrong and there's the point people are making a decision they have to ask themselves who it is they actually trust.

>> [inaudible] none of those countries wants to join the union despite the disadvantage would you say that they are under because they are not members of the european union and that's why other people say tha and even the trae minister has said if we started from scratch he wouldn't wish to join the union, isn't that true if we were not in the european union they wouldn't want to scare off the old-fashioned bobby's? >> they talk about the falling otrade going at the time and the share

we are part of the. in fact, the trade aspect move directly in our direction. much to the chagrin of some of the member states. i don't see why now we've got situation of europe that sold served our purposes. we simply walk away from it. >> grateful. thank you very much. very grateful for your time answering all those questions. i'm sure we'll be seeing you much in the course of the next few weeks. thank you. >> [inaudible conversations]

>> welcome to the committee and it's good to see once again. i think you know quite a few people around the table. you can probably conclude what you would like to see revise and maybe tell us, as long as you want, why scotland should wish to leave the european union. >> i think for me of the same reasons that the uk should leave but there are specific scottish reasons. some of which may appeal to individual numbers of the committee and others which may not. for example, the scottish parliament would inherit some fairly important new powers. no need for another smith commission. no need for legislation and displays by default automatically. new powers, particularly in

fishing, agriculture would be automatically evolved to the scottish parliament on the day we left the eu. my own view is scottish fishing would be far better run by scottish ministers. i think that will resonate with a lot of scottish voters. second thing is that would give us the power to actually partake long-term university students in scotland are at the moment and used it has exactly the same rate as any scottish student. unusually calm any other overseas student from, say the eu, must be for tuition fees. it were able to legally charge eu students, we would not only save the 18th and we're spending at home but also whatever the overseas would be different it's kind of a double whammy. that money could be used for anything scottish ministers want to use it for but i expect they

would want to use to protect the long-term free tuition for scottish students. once again that would be a matter for scottish students. thirdly, there's a democratic deficit. five years ago the snp elected on an overwhelming majority in the scottish parliament which no one expect. they had a mandate in place for alcohol. that was supported not just for the snp but by other parties. and yet european court of justice struck out and we don't have to because of our membership with the eu. just today there's another report saying alcohol sales particularly through supermarkets means we are selling per head 20% more alcohol in scotland than in england. whether or not you think that was the right solution is not relevant. what is relevant is that a mandated has the right to introduce its policies and in this particular occasion, it was

a lot because of advanced by the european court of justice. lastly, chair, assembly the bonus. we do, however much we want to argue about what the payment is that scotland were scottish taxpayers contribute as part of the eu's membership dues, when we are at the eu, that we simply not having to be spent. that money will come to scottish parliament. partly because there is normally available because of the differences between what we pay them what we get back also because they will come the the ability of the necessity of money to spend. so, for example, in agricultural payments can do something scottish ministers again would be georgia. on at agricultural recently snp government have fallen victim to a complicated agriculture payments are in scotland. they could construct their own way, and much more simple method of paying agricultural substitutes if they chose.

that's a matter for scottish ministers and i think it should be. >> stick it on the financial issue. the leak case claimed 359 pounds per week that contribute to you which make scotland share some 1.5 billion. this faile fail to take into act the uk rebate. as a model i saw in the bbc before he left the conference committee which was -- support for the private sector. is figured significantly diminishes. just how realistic is this figure and the extent that is money that comes back at all the rebate will support the trace because i absolutely think that some of the money we give the eu is spent in britain. not that is a you might of course. it's all scottish and uk taxpayers money, which is spent without her control, without her say-so act in scotland.

but for instance, this year i have a tax bill which i will pay. next year i will get a rebate of that. that doesn't affect what i pay my tax issue. the eu rebate is similar because it's not a rebate on this year's payment. it's a debate that's paid retrospectively a year later. so what we are paying out you think they do. for 350 million pounds a week comes from the office of national statistics. it's not made up. it's quite legitimate to use the gross them out and if we want to have a debate about what the differences between what we payy out and will be get out, then that's fair but people should be aware the level of money we are paying for the privilege of being the eu come its hundreds of millions of pounds a week. >> if this money is returned to the uk as claimed, the treasury, how confident are you that scotland would therefore once that money would go to the treasury, which secure a fair

share in terms of that spending? we are dealing with a conservative government, benevolent spending in scotland. should scottish people just toss the men from the treasury to ensure scotland will get its fair share? >> i'm sorry not asking anyone to trust the conservative party treasury. it's a nonparty organization but we do have a valid formula. conservative ministers have made it quite clear that payments, for example, to agriculture which is one of the biggest budget areas, payments to agriculture would inevitably continue for political reasons as well as agriculture. we understand why. if that means they public spending increase in england, the with the related public increase. it is in nobody's interest. i totally understand the political dynamic that it's in no one's interest in the westminster or it will become a spending what are the fact that

with the extra money available as a question of how the extra money would be divvied up. up. >> we haven't open the question. i think the case and the debate about the european referendum can be characterized around trade, sovereignty and integration but increasingly about integration. do you recognize in the least campaign tha that scotland's immigration or specifically different from the rest of united kingdom? the issues that we have is possibly integration and sluggish publishing growth speak with yes, absolutely recognize that different reality. was interest of listening to scottish mp on questions to three weeks ago and it defends of eu membership, he said we have still gaps in the scottish economy and, therefore, we need to get people with go some eu. and he's absolutely right. what a pity that would be

illegal under eu law. we cannot decide which parts, which professions, which qualifications we can attract from the eu. we must accept anyone who isn't eu citizen. irrespective of qualifications, the skills they bring. it's a bit of a double whammy because there's unlimited immigration from the eu which we cannot control and manage. therefore, the uk government has to limit immigration from other eu countries. if you're a businessman in india wants to get a visa to come to britain it's much were difficult because of the arrangement we have with the eu. non-eu citizens are being stung particularly that on this. if you forgive me, cheer, i think the whole -- >> just on that point, isn't which are trying to great, therefore, is that eu citizens should be treated with much the same citizens from anywhere else in the area? so the type of model you've got in mind, the one that can be applied to scotland is we would

have this free movement of populations across the european union area, and anybody who wishes to come to scotland to live, work and study in scotland would have to go through the same sort of tests and checks? >> essentially, yes. immigration is popular because, first of all, it's recognize as being economically beneficial but simply because ever since the end of the second world war immigration has been limited, has been managed, and the voters have been reassured by governments that's the case. and effect every single mainstream political party agrees in principle immigration must be managed in limited. within the eu we cannot manage our immigration. what i'm saying is what has held sway since the civil war was the right policy. that policy has been undermined by our membership and if you're a dentist or doctor from beijing, you have to wait in line behind a non-skilled worker from poland.

that's not helping our skills gap in scotland. >> we juswhich is exhibited in e ministers questions about a family in scotland. what we are observing is that the uk government is not particularly acting benevolent enforcing deportation next week. it's just staggering to think it's a just we would like to trade the rest of the people from europe in the same sort of manner and means and we. how does that assess some of the issues will do with in scotland? we are looking at demographic gap which is greater than the rest of united kingdom. one that we need to quickly close. what you're suggesting to us is we should have further controls on immigration. surely that can't possibly help the development in the scottish economies. you're looking for the wrong end of the telescope. the reason the uk government feels it has to be stressed with non-eu citizens is because he given unlimited and

unpredictable number of eu citizens coming in, irrespective of their abilities, skills or qualifications, then something else. we can't put on the universe commits we have to put up not eu numbers coming in. if you could have the same rules apply to everybody, you could afford to be realistically more flexible with people of all nationalities. >> could i just say that i've never detected any of the speeches that been made by nigel, one of your partners when it comes to this exercise, at what he's looking to do is to try to increase and equalize the entry about his for people from out the eu. i get the impression that what this is all about, is controlling immigration to the uk have stopped, i've never had anything from some of your colleagues within the least campaign has all but turned equalize. spent if you forget me, chair, nigel is a law partner of mine in the scottish league campaign

than david cameron is of yours. [laughter] nigel is a different campaign. >> i wanted to ask about red tape. weird lasting evidence on the euro red tape by the fact a lot of people talk about red tape but they can't give us tangible examples of what has been an issue. can you give us some tangible examples of work red tape is concerned speak was before i did okay but in context because i think there's been some concern about several goldplating eu regs. that is a historical thing because of the legal system in europe is different from the legal system as it pertains in the uk and scotland and england. the tradition is if something is unregulated competence to be illegal. regulation tends to only apply

if you want to limit access. so there's a different kind of political and cultural approach to regulation. allocated an example. there's a certificate of professional competency, mainly for the -- were every few years tribes have to and get this qualification which is an eu qualification, or obligation. that isn't a pass or fail o on the. once you start the test, after teacher certificate for the next two years, but there's no pass or fail. the time it takes drivers to take off what, to go and take the test is basically, that's where the cost is. there's another thing which applies to the construction industry. so any company that hopes to bid for local authority, contracts, or which hopes to apply for permission for a little project, they must use any project that must be eu approved.

the mark is quite difficult to get. i have had reports from people in the construction industry, new people come into the construction industry, but like the cpc come it doesn't actually guarantee a level of quality or state. it's and improve european mark which all of these countries must apply for or else they are not allowed to operate. i think you are wrong because of all these regulations. that's not what it's about. what it is about is the it is about discussing the eu relations chilled by basically becomes that actually do import or export into the single market. it shouldn't apply to companies this that they should only apply to one in 20 companies in scotland. we are saying regulation doesn't have to be done on a transcontinental basis. it should be done on a national level. i would hope the scottish

ministers would have been in for it. >> i heard good things said about the market, people do consider it quality. in terms of this red tape and eu rules and the goldplating and things, i'm not sure that what you said is necessarily an issue with the rules. i mean, the way the local government, for example, are implementing these rules, are making them happen. >> i think that's just the thing. there's less goldplating i think that from what i hear over the last five years. i think the coalition government made some advances in reducing the unnecessary levels of goldplating. i think the problem isn't so much of the goldplating. it's the number of regulations but particularly the number of eu regulations that apply to

companies, and you wonder, you know, why does it apply to a company that has no import or export relationship with the eu? if you are a foreign company outside the eu exporting into the single market, you must comply, of course, absolute write, with the standards that the eu dictates. but that doesn't mean every other single company. in america, for example, have to apply with the symbols because only the company that -- i think that's just common sense. >> thank you. john stephenson. >> thank you. we are all taking an interest in opinion polls, and the view of pollsters, the scottish voters are more in favor of the eu and the rest of the united kingdom. do you agree with the? >> we'll see. you know, i think there could have been i think somethings gather or exaggerated but clear there's a difference.

from a personal point of view, you know, not artificial scottish view, scottish vote leave point of view, there's a number of reasons for the. for the last that your personal know there's been a debate, it's not been about europe, it's been scottish independence. southington should extent and the way that hasn't happened and eu debate just as ugly to any kind of level of attention. but i think also importantly, the demands for so-called brexit have been seen as a pq obsession of the conservative party. and in scotland that means it's been isolated, it is being kind of cast aside. not pay too much attention because of the tory argument. i think that's a shame because these are issues that should have been debated for much longer. my own view is that is one of the reasons why, if the tories

hated it, it must be good. >> so you can afford to visit scotland going to come out if the rest of 19 devoted to stay in? >> i'm optimistic the kind of person, so i still am aiming for a majority of scots. that's absolutely my aim. but you do look out, most of the polls are showing that snp supporters perfect understand the reasons, snp voters as i know from personal experts are the largest group of voters from scotland, and so that's something i actually welcome the you can understand why and snp understand, excuse of the elected members, you can see why and snp voter offered the chance for new powers from the scottish parliament by default, a big argument, a big rally in westminster. you can understand why that is an attractive prospect.

>> so that if it was a majority of snp members, we would see a movement in the opinion polls. i think it's quite something to characterize this as a conservative because conservatives like it and before that must be something the scottish people must react against. it's something we think is important and something that we have enjoyed in the last 45 years. >> that remains to be seen, chair. but for my own discussions that i've had, first of all, with fellow leader party members, with neighbors, parents at my kids school, i don't detect a great deal of knowledge i don't mean that in a condescending way. i just think it's so touching something people are not interested in the it's almost

like it's a fact of life, it's there. rather than enthusiastic. i have said this before, i think support for the eu in scotland is very, very like. i don't think it's very deep. i think that what people actually hear the very reasonable arguments against this number should, i am confident that they will listen to them and act on them. >> i have numerous questions but i don't know where to begin but i will start with this. why is there no white paper? it's kind of a sick that most people need to see. what is the case for leaving the eu? up for the stores today and a few remarks about some of the benefits but why isn't there no white paper? >> is spent i think is a 25 years this has been going on. sure that point of time to produce a white paper or not. i think is a goldsmith brought

the argument 25 years ago, so surely it would've been a white paper by now. >> i'm sorry speak with john edwards, sorry. >> if you will remember, i don't want to trespass on personal of greece, but during the referendum let's just speak to the elephant in the room. the snp did produce a white paper year i actually don't think that data can't be any good. i think i'll did was set up a number of targets for the campaign to attack. now, i came into this campaign on a relatively late stage back in march flood not been involved at senior levels up until march. i was not involved in any white paper. but there's a lot of advice and information on the website about what actually -- happen after

june 23 in terms of informal discussions followed by formal negotiations, followed by the actual practical effectively and implementation of whatever new agreements were. by think that's a perfectly reasonable criticism today. i am not personally convinced it would've helped the campaign. >> a white paper in scotland, white paper in scotland -- around 25-28% support. by the reference date it would've been 45% what it was. shirley that showing it did work. i'm really astonished in all these years in this campaign for brexit the to a single white paper been published. idols like to ask a couple questions about the things you brought at the beginning of the presentation. you said that scottish students whose up tuition fees and eager is it not also go with a round, when they go to youth they also don't have to pay tuition? >> that is the case, yes.

>> so that the benefit? >> at a not going to be one of those campaigners who say everything in it is dreadful and everything else was wonderful. i think our benefits to you, you mentioned one of them, but the quality of that is there are fewer scottish student at university today than there were 110 years ago. i'll give you the actual figures. there's been an increased number of these kids. so, for example, it's not just in grants. it's not just in free tuition we've got to treat eu students and scottish to a level playing field. its applications university. i actually think if you're a scott applying to scottish university you should be given preferential treatment. that cannot happen under eu law. the result is fewer scots are going to university escala. they may well be going abroad. that's good for them but i will be honest i'm more concerned about access to scottish universities.

>> why is it the case on a single university in scotland has made the case that want to join the leave campaign if, in fact, everything one of them, bar one, is join, what is it neutral speak with your absolutely right. i'm not aware of a single organization in receipt of huge amounts of du money spent which are saying is eu does benefit the university's? >> no. i think the money we get back from the eu, want to do for every single payment, every single best in the eu normally gives to any political institution would have a lot of money left over. but the fact is if you receive in very large quantities of money from, ostensibly from the eu, it's not surprising that those academics are going to advocate to rant about. >> much more money available to university. >> presumably they aren't skeptical as you are.

>> i just want to ask about the campaign movements because there's to come isn't there, this one called grassroots another one called leave. not to be confused with the people's front. can you tell you what the difference is between the two, if one is cognitively already covering that key evidence of it the other? >> the two campaigns, they have to be by, for legal reasons, completely separate. so we can't ordinate our activities because they have a separate budget. we have a separate budget and the commission would frown quite rightly on any coordination because it would look like it was a single budget. we don't want that to happen. we need to be entirely separate from the scottish leave campaign. grassroots, i'm not particularly familiar with them. after yesterday, i've only been involved in this campaign since march. there's a long history, i think

more than just the two organizations are rigidly. there's a long history of out why they are separate or positions and the personalities involved. i feel quite privileged at not ever having been involved in any of those discussions. >> i understand that liam fox is leading at the grassroots campaign in scotland talking about in april. i just a little confused about what the differences are between the two. if i'm confused what's the general public proceeding between the two? >> i don't think the public could care less. we're not asking for support for a particular campaign. we are asking for support for a leave vote and if the vote to leave because some in the grassroots have spoken to, i really don't care. which is what people to vote believe. >> thank you. >> i just want to come back a bit because i knew i'd seen it before.

[inaudible] that is a mark of the being safe in means it's not flammable. it means a safer children. tool you're not suggesting that is unnecessary red tape speak with no, i'm not. and let's be honest, say the eu come with the want of those markings. that particular mark of a stock about in the construction-ish as applies to the construction industry, for any company that wants to be for a government contract or planning permission to in the circumstances in the construction industry, it's not only a barrier to entry but it doesn't guarantee any level of quality at all. the vote leave campaign is in favor of child safety. >> just kidding verification of the. thank you very much. >> the prime minister has said that the leave campaign rather than the uk government, what the cable do in terms of a leave of what do we do it in terms of a leave vote? vote?

>> cannot preface my answer by point out that if there is belief a vote on the 24th of june, every single member of parliament including a good around this table will be full square behind making sure britain gets a big deal out of any of that. irrespective how you feel, we are disappointed or angry or whatever, surely anyone in public life is going to say right, let's get behind the uk negotiating a new deal. so people should be reassured this could be the leave campaign because it's going to be the british government, scottish ministers. it's going to be i hope talent from across all the parties and from publics aside and visit the however they feel about the result, all working together for the uk's benefit. i just think it's more to say that the people should be reassured that is not going to be a minority interest. >> just on that a simple point. which also therefore agreed every so you can government and

politician in europe will be doing the absolute best to make sure that your its absolute best deal for them in any decorations with uk? >> i would hope so because a good deal for europe would be a good deal for the uk. on the day we leave the eu we become the largest export market for the eu. with however many jobs depend on trade with the uk. so i mean there is no contradiction, no conflict of interest. it would be a very good deal for the eu. we are told by the remain can't that the eu nations are friends. do want to keep us close. they want to look after us. they want us to prosper. but if you lead or destroy, i don't think that's what they are saying. i don't think there's a single eu nation to which is -- who wishes as the. once we are out, once we can actually have the right to negotiate our own ideals, which most people are unaware we are not even able to do at the moment, once we can negotiate our own ideals, there's actually

no reason, given how close we are in terms of regulation, in terms of the relationships that already exist, there's absolutely no reason why the eu would not want to trade with us. >> 's what do you think we should do in the event we do have -- >> a number of practical things you have to do first of all. there would be no need to immediately revoke our membership of the eu right away. the negotiations would last as long as they last the we would have to go into negotiations on a trade deal first of all with the eu but at the same time we've got the facilities, we've got the resources to start get trade deals with other big players like india and china and the united states. that is sadly no reason to be come are speaking interesting enough, i was speaking to the scottish minister association and us asking about the barriers to having a trade deal with india.

the eu represented 2 20 differet countries up and tried to push a treaty with india for nine years and we are still not do. -- still not there. would ask the association with the biggest block to india was, it was visas for indian citizens to the uk. now, they are not going to get what they want from you because they can't because as long as, going back to the immigration issue, as long as we got immigration from the eu we can a significant increase number of these this weekend did not eu countries but we can't if we are outside of the eu. >> that's getting back to this proposal that the uk government are going to look much more generously, and definitely in getting visas to people from, subcontinent and again the uk government's -- >> on the contrary, chair.

actually historically given the political and cultural links we've had with, for example, the subcontinent, i mean, there is a reason why -- >> i think it's taken a massive leap of faith to think the uk is going to change its immigration views about accepting people from the rest. >> it's not about leap of faith. it's about what our best interest is. >> hold on. you interrupted my train of thought. just carrying on with this, just out of interest you think the present government is doing enough with regard to planning for potential leave? >> honestly i can't address the. i don't know what's going on behind closed doors. i imagine that certain boxes have been checked as far as the civil service is concerned but i couldn't speak to that of all, i'm sorry.

>> david frost with the chief executive we believe it's important for united kingdom to remain a part of the european union. the single market are central to scottish whiskey success. let of straight across simply and easily. does going to say all but about the agreements includes a stay become importance of a deeper and for your single market for the eu to be more ambitious international. there's no talk of his supporting any of the four major criticism of the eu. this is vital for the future of the scottish whiskey. >> for the record, i did say to that you when i made my comments, scottish whiskey our unequivocally in favor of the campaign. i am simply pointing out i think a flaw in their strategy or achieving a trade deal with

india, i don't think it's going to be possible at least under the terms that would benefit us, if that you've negotiated, but let's quote david frost. he did say last year that actually the membership of the eu was not important to what was important was the quality of the product. this is a bargain i've been making for very long time. it's not about trade deals. you can trade without a trade deal and it's not about tears. it's about the quality of the product. the market will not decide whether you of something that wants to buy. if we produce things of high quality, the world will buy it. so friends can we sell more scottish whiskey in a month than they sell brand india. that's a high quality product. i think we have come development produce because people will buy it. >> i just want to ask before come on to the main question, the eu single market rules --

for example, health and safety profession into the agency, workers rights, paid annual leave what's included the at the moment we actually see the uk government is wanted to downgrade human rights. i could go on and mention cosmetic regulations which i'm sure mr. law won't be interested in cosmetic regulatioregulatio n. i serving in the we need to look at the transatlantic trade and investment with russia as well. that's just some of the benefits being part of the eu and having the laws at the moment spent first of all can i say that the

recent publicity about the conservative government wishing to downgrade human rights, that's been done at the moment in, say, the eu. the eu isn't offering any protection at all to what the government is doing. so in the eu that something is happening. that's not because, secondly, if you look at some of the great leaps forward and workers rights in this country, protection against discrimination against discrimination on account of race, national minimum wage, term lead of year, they're opera in a future love. they were brought in before -- >> because members of the eu. >> yes. and completely separated but no influence on the eu.

the national minimum wage, for example, the government's -- >> i don't understand your point. you say these things happen because -- as members of the eu. >> correct. what i'm saying is those advances were made completely outside the institution of the eu. they were made by british politicians elected here, accountable to their own electors. the biggest step forward and workers rights -- >> do you have concerns of british politicians here, conservative government being sold in charge, and power, which comes to things like employment rights, human rights, we're going to have to live up to westminster. we are going to have to leave it up to conserve government who, again, don't take the most enlightened view on these issu issues. >> as i said, the attack come if you want to call an attack on human rights with the direction of the bill of rights is happening at the moment. it is being done by politicians that support the remain camp.

but actually yes, you know, i'm still a member of the labour party. i was labour in the until a member -- a year ago. of course, i would rather have a labour government and the conservative of the. i make no apology for that but let's remember, any government still wants to be elected. i am not convinced that people say when the minimum wage get out, i'm perfectly people saying we did was get back in raise the men wage. governments do what they need to do to get elected. >> isn't the european union guaranteeing these basic rights? can't rely on that but there will always be there? the labour government might do wonderful enlightened things or whether it's a conserve government with the support, these methods in place. that are human rights across the european union austin tice we can rely on that and count on

that as the future of a democratic life. >> i would ask trade unionists speak have you spoken to trade unionists because how they feel about the level of protection they have against the latest -- i think unpleasant areas of public policy. the european union, i don't think, has been very much a protecting workers rights in that respect. >> one more question. i mean, you've been putting across a strong argument for a legal vote on the 24th a jim capretta so you said that you pretty much assumed -- but when the prime minister came back after his meeting in brussels present his deal i think the quote you can you said the rate -- and you changed your mind. where do you think the prime minister's deal falls short?

>> we don't have enough time for me to tell you all my problems. >> if you can make it as quick as possible. >> essentially i have a particular problem with my own party who constantly was a yet, the european union in the slaughter because of the strong, does that wrong. what i realized belatedly when david cameron returned was nothing from his negotiations, was that you can't reform a. if a conservative heretofore prime minister goes to the eu and goes to other national leaders and says look, i need these reforms, i've got a referendum happening in three months time and britain is the second largest and you might actually the eu, that's how important is you give me me the forms. and it around and say no. if you can't get reform under those circumstances, i promise you you'll never get reforms. >> you've only got one minute left. >> can't i just make the point

that at a press conference earlier today, steve hill made that very point. he said and asked what the prime minister thought he was going to get a better deal. steve feldman said john thought the prime minister believed that would be able to persuade his european partners that because he felt so strongly about this issue they would make concessions. because he didn't windows concessions, to use steve hilton's work, the prime minister and the finest that tht fountains of an erratic and his position. that's why steve hilton mary story said we must leave. chairman, took about what you think of you were challenging as to whether or not anybody else was the same as a witness is, that we need to have control over all migration across the world. what steve hilton said was because with no control on eu immigration, we have to plant down on everything else. in a globally connected world,

this kind of old-fashioned this commission is counterproductive, economically and culturally. turning away brilliant chinese student, indian mathematicians excellent. don't you think would make more sense evident immigration policy that was open to the brightest and best from across the world, not just a small part of it? that's not possible within the. this is a situation in scotland, which is always been outward looking, that scots would be much more prepared to have open borders with the whole of the rest of the world on the basis of merit in the same way scots themselves have made such a big contribution globally? >> if you could answer briefly speed of course. it comes back to the immigration debate and eu referendum has nothing to do with -- it's about skills, it's about wanting to attract people of a particular skill set which we can do in the constitution. it is also but whether or not you have confidence in the government to provide a homes,

the services and the school places for the 3 million new eu citizens. >> we are very grateful. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> i'm very grateful to both of you for come along to the session the second. we haven't got much time. we were rustled as many plays as possible. we know the prime minister is negotiating a russian ship with the eu and is campaigning for the uk remain in of reform eu. how will these reforms affect scotland? i take it from you first, mr. livingstone spent i think this in terms of how the reforms that you can support particularly will affect scotland i think in particular

scotland, like the rest of the uk, will benefit from the principles that will define the future relationship between those countries in the euro and those that choose to make gaza. i think if we look to the long term, this was a very important element of the overall renegotiation because i believe that economic logic would require our neighbors have committed themselves to a currency union, single mantra policy, single industry, a single central bank, overtime to integrate the fiscal economic policies more closely, and that in turn will require some mechanism to create political accountability at euros on level. for those decisions. so the testing year, the union as a whole, is how to make that possible, and i believe that it is in scotland, uk's interest that the eurozone should be

stable as a currency and not moving from one crisis to another. how you do that while at the same time respecting the integrity of a single market of 28 and the right of those countries who are outside the currency you need other interest properly respected i think nondiscrimination on grounds of currency against any company or government, a principle that your zone integration must take place in a way that does not compromise the single market at 28, including financial services at 28. no liability of non-euro countries for bailouts of years of countries. those are really important principles. the other thing, such a time is limited, chairman, i refer to the federal european councils conclusions was the declaration of economic coveted business and the commitments on smarter

regulation. because those touched on matters that were particularly concerned of scottish government when they put forward their own proposals on european reform. >> there was lots of ones into which i'm struggling to sort the process but i think we are just a, we have this renegotiation threw for good. i thin think it has won think is won a difference, except what the prime minister secured. i'm pretty concerned next event which we without was. uncertainty went during this table to come it would be hard for anybody to call what the prime minister secure backing for good. there's nothing whatsoever to do with these negotiations and it's more about sovereignty, about trade and immigration? >> i think both sobered and trade are important issues, but i think if i had to sum up the central achievement of february, it was a commitment by all member states of the european

union, at head of government level, that the future model for development should be one where we all accept that different levels of integration could be chosen by different eu members, that is to longer a question of perhaps different speeds with different destination, but of a permanent choice by some countries not to proceed to the degree of political integration or the fiscal economic integration that other members of the union for their own reasons they choose to do. >> i think you can't identify with the big themes are in scotland. there seem to be pretty much similar to what's happening in the uk to be. a dozen to be sovereignty. we hear less about trade because the leave campaign your less likely. it's mainly about immigration, a couple cases of immigration. i'd like to ask the scottish secretary this question.

given this is such a big thing, do you recognize there is a different immigration requirement in scotland than the rest of the uk? this is possibly not helping, like we all considered case in scotland, people can now look at the issues involved. >> i don't recognize your characterization of the debate in scotland. i think the focus of the debate in scotland is really around the economic issues and the economic benefits of scotland gains from being within a single market, the impact it has on the hundreds of thousands of jobs in scotland that are affected by membership of the eu. what the likely impact on individual citizens in scotland would be if scotland and britain the left the eu. that's the debate. obviously, i think we all accept

there's a different place because it had a scar just pull them into election the focus of the contingent in scotland for the last couple of months. but my interpretation of the debate, as i see it in scotland, is actually focus on those economic issues. >> in your conversations have you noticed that the state of scotland and eu referendum, are there any things that have emerged, scotland looking at this question, will be distinct from the rest of the uk? >> i think, i wouldn't say a distinct in that a number of issues could arise in other parts of the united kingdom but obviously as was raised at scottish questions last week, you know, scottish whiskey industry is an enormously important industry to scotland and the scottish whiskey association have been very, very

clear that for the industry, it's a vitally important that the remain in the eu because of all the trade arrangements, because all the arrangements that are in place in relation to labeling and tagging of all these things that are in place that would have to be opened up if britain was to leave the eu. obviously, farming i think is an industry which has a disproportionate importance still in scotland compared to some of the parts of the united kingdom. it's very, very clear him and you took evidence yourself that the farming community in scotland is very, very clear of the benefits to the industry, in which then leads to the food processing industry. so i think distinct elements within scotland necessary shape our debate but i'm sure there are from interest in england. that are spewed producers in england who would echo those arguments.

>> i'm just wondering, this is the last question from an open question for me, perhaps different type of conversation in scotland given the experience with referendum? you and i were on other sites in the last referendum debate and we find ourselves fighting on the same side on this one. some of the exaggerated claims of made taken from uk government, things that you and i would remember as the scare stories and the self-styled project a few. do think this has a more negative impact in scotland given the excuse of the last referendum? is anything you could do to caution the minister who speak out at the uk government committee held accountable but when it comes to some of the more exaggerated claims? >> my first point and it's one that i would make again to the minister, to yourself, your colleagues in your party. i have the calls for a positive campaign, but they are not usually follow up by a whole

range of negative comments about the way the campaign is being run of processed, or even the impact it would have on having a second independence referendum in scotland. i think those people who are positive about scotland remaining in the eu should be out there making a positive case, and that's all of us. i think we can all shape the debate in scotland by making a positive case. and i think, it's not just enough to say make a positive case. you've got to go out and do it. you will recall 10 days ago i appeared on the question time program from aberdeen making a positive case for the eu. of course, making the case for scotland leaving the eu was jim am a former deputy leader. >> before we move on, things like mentioning war and pestilence and economic ruin, i mean all the things we are familiar to at this table, the

scottish reverend. do these things really help educate, inform debate? how can any of these things, how can they be loosely characterized -- >> i always caution chairman into reading too much into the headlights of the tabloid newspapers. if you look, for example, at the prime minister's recent speech by the security and foreign policy dimension of our membership with the eu, was you'll find it is a very positive case be made. both for the way in which the eu has been able to reconcile ancient hatreds that did in the past lead to blood thirsty conflict between the nations of europe, but also prime minister referred to how the membership of the european union amplified the united kingdom's own ability to secure our global, diplomatic, and commercial objectives.

the are issues that face us all. instability and poor economic growth in many countries in africa, which is one of the key driving forces behind the mass movement of people towards the european continent. working methodically together, using develop an aide, using diplomatic action, training police and military, border forces in those countries, using trade access agreements to get people in those countries some hope of a decent living a fulfilling their ambition without having to move. we stand a chance overtime mentioned those charges. >> thank you for that. johjohn stevenson. >> the prime minister recently said there was remarkably little distance between scotland, england, wales and northern ireland in terms of whether people support a referendum. there's polling evidence that scots are more enthusiastic

about the eu and the rest of the united kingdom. what do you make of that? >> about whether there was demand within scotland for a referendum. the last time that a specific call was taken in scotland, it indicated 58% of people in scotland supported there being a referendum on whether scotland remained within the eu. i think having a referendum on eu membership is entirely consistent with having a referendum on whether scotland remains within the united kingdom, which obviously we did in 2014. i think people in scotland just as people across the united kingdom will be able to have their say in the debate. clearly, i support scotland and britain remain in figure. i think you have to acknowledge that there are people within scotland who will vote to leave.

i think it's not, i don't think attractive to address a number of people who support leaving the eu in scotland as a number of people who voted for ukip said in the scottish public election. clearly significantly more people than that do. but i expect scotland to vote and expect the united kingdom to vote to remain in the eu spent in gc so i can know significance in terms of support for -- >> this is clear. without a number of debates obviously. as the eu referendum bill was passed, but this is a uk wide vote. everybody's vote counts the same, whether -- the result will be determined on the uk wide vote. >> thank you. >> i'm just very conscious of the time to help you get is the question as possible so if we just ask brief questions and brief replies to it if that's okay.

>> the prime minister to vote to lead the eu could lead to the disintegration of the united kingdom. so does that mean the european government, able to view would mean there would be a second independence referendum in scotland? and if not, what did the prime minister mean by that statement? >> i think, i certainly don't believe that the prime minister mint or would wish to indicate, and i certainly wish to indicate, that the eu referendum has anything to do with the scottish independence referendum. ..