there are other pieces of government that has the responsibility to get them there, to train, to equip. but we have to make sure that we have the resources. and what you have shared with us, both of us, is invaluable from a standpoint of how we look at it. and as both senators said, to see the human face behind the issue is absolutely crucial to those of us who sit on this committee and in this institution and ask taxpayers to fund things from people that they'll never meet. but i do have a couple of questions. dr. brantly, are you convinced that it played a role in your

cure? i think that since you knew them, you got it? >> i was receiving the best care they could afford to give me in liberia. my own opinion is that zmapp, i believe, had a beneficial effect in my treatment. but as the doctor very clearly said, this is an experimental drug that my story is an anecdote, and while a very convincing one, it's just one. and it really requires more testing of the the drug to prove whether or not it's beneficial on the large scale. and i'm very thankful for the -- for all the people because i think it was helpful to me and i think it will be helpful in future outbreaks because there will be future ebola outbreaks. >> let me say this, when the chairman was referring to he was

concerned this might spiral out of control. i think we've already spiralled. i think we're in that spiral now. i think that had we had more time with robin robinson, we would understand that we're probably january at the earliest for therapy. and that's without extensive clinical trials, as you can imagine. we're january, first quarter, with potentially some vaccine product. and that's with, being a doctor, you know, if we're talking about a five-month clinical trial process, we have accelerated it greatly. we're going to break every fail safe that exists at the fda. just like they did in the decision to administer zmapp to you because that's jurisdictionally under this committee, it's important that we all understand, we're going to sort of recreate the wheel

because this is an extraordinary circumstance. and i guess i'm asking for your medical opinion. and your opinion as somebody that knows the folks that are being affected. if we choose to go before we know everything with some type of therapeutic response, is that the best course for us to follow? or should we be prudent and take longer knowing that we know a little more about the therapy or the vaccine? >> i think who came out with a statement several weeks ago saying they believe it's ethical to use experimental drugs in circumstances such as this i would agree with them that if we know -- i mean, in my case we didn't know if it would be

harmful or not. i think if you're going to start giving it to people who don't have the background to be able to give really understood, informed consent, it's important that we know that what we're giving them is safe and potentially beneficial. but i think -- i think those types of drugs, especially vaccines, i think the other panel has spoke to that better than i can. but i think they would have a role, especially if we're not -- if we don't have this thing under control by january. the numbers that we look at for every infected individual, that they will infect somewhere between 5 and 20 individuals. the multiples are huge. i think i heard both of you say that when we look at sierra

leone 1620 cases, 653 in the last 21 days, liberia, you think those are woefully understating the size of the problem. did i hear both of you correctly? >> yes, senator. >> okay. >> senator, may i speak just a moment on that? i think those numbers may be underestimated for sure. i think what you're seeing is a representation of how quickly this thing is growing when you compare what the numbers were to how fast they're growing now. and those don't have anything to do with the transmission. and that's why we need to intervene in the communities to disrupt the transmission of this disease.

when the krcdc said act now, no is like tomorrow. i'm not sure we ever that type of turnout in government. facing the reality of what is in front of us is also important. last question. and you've been very patient to stick with us as long as you have. what are the possibilities of using social media as our communication tool in west africa, and can that be effective? >> yes. the use of social media has a lot of effects in sierra leone specifically, especially among young people and those who also have access to mobile phones. but the cost of communication is tremendously expensive compared to what i can access in america

on my cell phone. as a cost. and what i can access in sierra leone on a monthly basis for the same cell phone. so it's very expensive. but it definitely has a very big impact. a lot of information is sometimes misleading also. that's another negative aspect. but the fact is a lot of good information is also being transmitted and communicated through what's happening. facebook especially. >> dr. brantly, do you agree? >> i agree. i think up to this point they've been using print media to reach the population and there's a catchy tune they play on the radio about ebola, reminding people that ebola is real and they need to protect themselves and protect their families. and it talks about how the

disease is spread and i think it's a very important means of reaching people. >> well, again, i want top thank both of you. i especially want to thank samaritans first. they are certainly there when you have a tragedy in the world. they are part of the story. and i think a lot of the presence in north carolina and a lot of the vision and the commitme commitment, not that we don't have a lot of response, but they're certainly consistently there. and for that we're grateful. thank you both. >> i just had a -- dr. brantly, first thanks to both of you for coming. we're at the end and senator harkin will end this in a minute. i want to make sure i understand something. you began to treat patients on

june 11th and became ill on july 20. is that right? >> july 23rd. yes. >> you became ill on july 23rd. about how many patients did you treat? >> i believe during that time we had about 45 or 50 patients come through our unit. not every one of those was positive for ebola, but even many of them that were negative for ebola because because of a severe illness they came to the hospital with. >> so the 45 or 50, all but one died? >> no, sir there were some who tested negative and we discharged them from the unit. >> so of those 45 or 50, some had ebola. >> i can't remember the numbers exactly. i would say of the 45 probably 20 of them had ebola, and probably 10 or 12 of them tested negative and discharged. so that would leave another 5 or so who came to us with something

other than than ebola but unfortunately died because of the severity of their illness. >> yeah. so you became ill on july 23rd. you were tested on july 26th. you said something about a two-week course. does that mean in within two weeks you know if you're going to recover or die if you have ebola. is that right? >> in general. most people with ebola, they usually, if they die from it, they die between days four and ten. but it can be a 14 or 16 day illness. so you can't just say you're on day ten, you're out of the woods. that's not the case. it was day nine when i was the sickest and almost died. >> so you become infected. you don't infect others until you have symptoms, correct? >> correct. >> so there's a period of time in about two weeks, where you

can infect other people. plus the time if you died, there's that period of time. >> correct. you contract the virus and have a 2 to 21-day window before you become symptomatic. once you become symptomatic, it may be three days or two weeks. in my case, i was issic for almost four weeks before the cdc decided that my test was negative enough consecutive times that they could discharge me from the hospital. so you're correct. people are infectious during their illness. and usually that is less than two or three weeks. >> so what is really different is how fast it moves. is that right? >> the virus moves -- it kills quickly. and like the doctors said, it's not so contagious like the flu

virus that someone will get it by sitting near you. but it kills its victims quickly. >> so within that two weeks period or so of, period of infection, do you figure one might infect 5 to 20 other people. they have an incubation period of 2 to 21 days, and then they may have a 2-week period of infection in which they may infect 5 to 20 more people. so that all happens very, very rapidly if that happens. >> yes, sir. >> okay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very muff pr being here, for your patience. and for sharing us your poernl stories. the obama administration moving rapidly on this today. president obama was down at cdc.

we are ourselves working here to do everything we can to rapidly respond. and to support the president in this effort. i think the right time is of the essence. but it has to be done correctly. rather than rushing in and doing things that may even make it worse. certainly we need to get the equipment there. the personal protection gear for home health. health care workers in these countries. we need to do a rapid series of educational programs in these countries so that the local populous begins to know what to do and how to respond and not to be afraid. and that needs to be done rapidly. i trust that there are ngos, like the one you were with that you know that you are here with

that mr. charles, ngos that can be very helpful on this, i believe. and who have been there for some time and who have good relations with people in these countries. so i'm hopeful that as we do this, i hope that we will learn from, lean on, ask the help of the ngos that are in these countries. they can be extremely helpful, i think. do you concur with that? >> yeah, we need to really ask them for their help. so again, thank you very much. i hope and trust that your wife and your daughters are safe. and if they hear any of this at all, i want to be sure then that you'll be back home and you'll be safe. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. and thank you, dr. brantly, again for your great example. the record will remain open for

eight days. thank you very much. we'll stand adjourned.

0

[ silence ]

>> if you missed any of this senate hearing on the global outbreak of ebola or president

obama's comments on ebola from the center for disease control, you can catch more today. earlier, we had a live covering on the situation with isis. we want to know if you think obama is using the right strategy. some responses from facebook. the u.s. is certainly pursuing the right strategy if chaos is the goal and the outcome is to create an endless supply of terrorist groups to fight endlessly. meanwhile, charles writes frr, what i see, the president is doing whatever he can as fast as he can as far as professional stagnation. tomorrow, the house elect committee on benghazi holds its first public hearing on the5y #-

get started, go to studentcam.org. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span, here on c-span3, we show the public affairs events.

>> visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic siets to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. "history bookshelf" looking at the presidents and legacies of chanders in chief. and our new series, real america, featurie inine ining c government. >> scotland votes this thursday on whether or not to become ind p independent of the united kingdom. turnout for the september 18th vote will be at least 80% and that this was "the biggest civic

engagement in scottish history. panelists previewed the upcoming referendum. this is about 90 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, i'd like to welcome you all here today to -- actually, one of the very first events in our conference space. i'm thrilld that i put the microphone and it actually works. it seems our newly filled facilities with the big question of certainly next week, which is the potential revamping of the

united kingdom, perhaps in not in ways that many people would like not to be happening. simply if the referendum in scotland moves 20wards a yes vote, the renovation, it will be a complete overhaul of a system that we ooech all known and heard for a good number of years and many here on this panel were the product of. we're absolutely delighted to welcome two colleagues who have flown from edenburg to be with us. they have been spearheading thel be happening on or after september 18th. this has been a huge study and very much symbolic of the whole debate about the skotish referendum. it's been very heavy on process. as we know, many people around the world are watching this

extremely closely. this is a rather unique event. it's something that's been negotiated over a long period of time, of decades, between edenboro and london. and, now, the rest of the world is really paying close attention. a lot of events that could not be anticipated when british prime minister and scottish first prime minister saturday down to tlaush out the details on what was going to happen on september 18th have really framed this. we've had all kinds of interests from all kinds of places. and, of course, also, we're against the backdrop of events

in catalonia and bars lobarcelo spain. but the big controversial question that is we're going to look at today and hopefully give you a sense of the implications of the united states and we're very grateful for everybody participating in this panel. we're also joined by jeff dire who is one of the senior journalists. he's best here in the united states. jeff is originally from skotland. he'll be the one person with a gener genuine scottish accent. he's originally from the united states, kansas and oklahoma, but she is a resident in scotland. and charlie can tell you himself

about his own orch we're going to ask jeremy to give his perspective. >> he's going to give us a sense of the whole perspective of the referendum, the paradigm, the framework, how this has all eed. and, again, i'd like to thank charli, and juliet for coming

because they've been able to use all of this research to explain this to this audience. we're very grateful. >> thank you very much, indeed, fiona. it's a great pleasure to see so many people here. we are representing a broad program of research called future of the u.k. and scotland. if you type future and u.k. scotland into google, you'll find us. what we're looking at is the big question, should scotland be an inpendent country, yes or no. that ice what skot's voters will have before them next week chlgt that's a decision by any standard. it's a decision generally seen as one of the most successful unions in world history. if we do it, there will be

immense implementations. we will have in scotland by the end of this weekend, some 400 camera crews in edenboro and i think thousands of print journalists coffering the events of next week, k4 is quite extraordinary. what they will see is a nation discovering its rights with great seriousness. 4.3 million scotts have registered to vote. that is 97% of the eligible electorate. it's iterly unprecedented. we expect to see a turnout of at least 80%. and we haven't seen turnouts at that level in u.k. politics since the immediate pier yod of the second world war. what i think striking 1 how the debate has been conducted. we have seen and have had lots

of press coverage of occasional bursts of online abuse. and there have been a small handful of discussions on the streets. i think this is by some way the biggest civic engagement process in scottish history. and i think from that, we're going have a very well-informed electorate as we go to the polls this wook. so, you might ask, what do they think? well, upd on the screen here, we have the poll of polls.

you can see that the end of last year, the pink line at the top was no. the blue line, yes, under 40%. you can see a significant narrowing in the polls in the spring of this year. the average is now 51-49. expect a close outcome on thursday, this week. a few words on the big theme that is each side have put forward.

and i'll use the framing of negative and positive campaigning. i think the negatives probably o o outweigh the positives. on the no side,we have had an essentially negative message. a message of risk, uncertainty and refusal of ideas that scottish government wouldn't want us to assume. to quote several figures on the no side, it is not going to happen.

what we've seen there is quite a dismal vision. i think that message of risk and loss has shown a diminishing return. it's lost its impact. i think that's one of the reasons you see on this graph is a no for support. what we're seeing now is a big echo from the private sector, from finance and from other areas of industry. today's u.s. version of financial times is carrying that. that can be rather averse to people telling them what to do on the no side, we've seen very little about campaigning. very little about why it is good and why tlt be better if it stayed 234 the union.

we've seen a bit of a change in this in the last week. generally, a positive message, generally aspirational. a different kind of role in the international arena which judy will talk about in a few moments. and an aspirational message continuing friendly parts with the rest of the u.k. after independence. all very positive.

also very vague and very unconvincing. elspecially in the willingness f the partners when the partners say we're not really very willing. in the last weeks, we've seen a much stronger negative message from the yes side. if we stay, the national health office will privatized. 23 we stay, we will continue to be governed by a political party that is deeply disliked in

>> at the same time as that, the scottish government will be working with thehearted.

that will no doubt be connected to discussion of scotland's share of assets in particular oil and gas reserves. but, also, liabilities in particular the scottish share of the u.k.'s accumulated public debt. my sense is on that cluster of issues, the two sides after a yes vote, would discover a mutual interest in messages of reassurance and stabilization to markets. eu negotiations will be challenging, not least because of other countries with slar situations.

nato membership will be challenging. we could accept pack anxious deals. currency and nuclear weapons is also one evoked in that sense. the final big challenge will be held to insulate all of that. similar negotiations for what will be a fell bring at mos fear in the u.s.

that starts on the 19th of september in a record process would follow prior to the may 2015 u.k. election involving decentralization of powers and welfare. there will be plenty of issues around that. note least because of the pro-union parties. they come up and satisfy demand in skot land. i say that because whatever

happens, close to half of scots will vote to leave. there will be tremendous pressure to lead praktly ha l practically half of scots to vote no. we're already hearing that a little bit in wales. so, to conclude, 23 yes, you will be observing and some of you, no doubt, will be participating in a process of enormous significance and no little drama with important international debates.

i doubt actually, we'll find them. but whether or not we'll get to that situation, we'll have to wait until next thursday. >> thank you, charli. so, julia, the larger implications? >> thank you, fiona. and thank you to your colleagues here for inviting us and letting us talk about these issues today. i'm going to briefly talk about foreign policy and then i'll conclude by challenging a couple of asuchgsumptions on both side this debate.

scotland is the most distinct area of change. it is foreign affair that is would give scotland considerable new powers. the yes side has outlined some directions, although not completely specific that it would take a scottish foreign policy. and i'd like to characterize state's foreign policies in terms of four pillars. profi profits, protections independents and pride. we would see continuity in economic foreign policy, although with a much smaller economy.

there could be a big difference if scotland gets in the e.u. and the u.k. votes to leave the e.u. this and a scottish defense force would be the corner stones of scotland's protection. its military would focus on its integrity. its defense budget focuses on maritime forces. rejects the trident submarine.

it says it wants the weapons removed as soon as possible. it is a yes side that emphasizes it would have different international priorities from westminster. most clearly, in their words, matters of war and peace. the yes side is clearly laying out aspirations for being champions in international peace, human rights and climate justice. but there are just a few clues on how these values would actually be implemented. scotland would not be in violation for international law. many times, with heard the

hypothetical argument that an independent scotland would not have participated in iraq. there's little talk of pride in the yes campaign materials. so what's the no side reaction? restraints on scotland as a small state. the no side says that the memberships are not automatic. e.u. membership may be vetoed and even if granted, it's not likely to come with the optouts that the u.k. currently has.

the numbers just don't add up and could create a security risk. the no side is very familiar to us who study international relations. small states don't matter. can't have the influence that big states have and must often compromise that i recall values in exchange for security. this, according to this view, scotland's interests are better represents and protected at home and aprod by a u.k. that has a perm nantd seat. the yes side has counter reaction.

the yes side also argues that the u.s. doesn't need a global profile and doesn't attract enemies and threats that sometimes big states do. the yes side has influence because they are seen less a threat to others. so what has been the international reaction to this? most states say this is a matter of international factor. this has largely been on the no side.

the negative international reactions have many sources. worry that is a scottish secession could spill over into their coup tris. there's others that have voiced genuine concerns and the concern of the stable weakening. i don't think the international commentary has much impact in the eternal debate and the vote next week. perhaps the financial market was more important. but when states intervene, they risk some backfiring among the skotish population. so i would end by questioning

two. there is an assumption of static. it's considered as a major power that better represents people of scotland in the world. but this is not an untested view. emerging powers are important. the u.k. defense is in the midst of downsizing and likely to face mu murter budget cuts as well. here, too, there's lack of trust. a lack of humanitarianism.

there are real disagreements ef enthe kord u.k. over the worth of trident. certainly, the u.s. position is still strong, but arguenly, not as strompk as it may have use to be. these are not just issue that is divide here. and even without scot irk ind pen densz. they may affect the u.k.'s role in the world. on the yes side, there's been a strong assumption. we know states don't always act with their complications.

the u.k. will hold national e lektss next year. and if the con servetives win, they have prochlsed a referendum on the membership. >> thank you, julia. we're going to turn to jeff dwyer who has fallen on challenging times. >> no matter what the out commonwealth of pennsylvania, this is going to feed into a big debate.

i know that here in the corridors of books, i 'heard of one of my colleagues that there will be a big demand for some of them for re-thinking of the uchlt k. there is any wrai, as we all know. more out come of the referendum is higher. nothing will be con stant in this debate. there will be more issues on the table as we looked sforward. >> thank you very much for inviting me here today. i really appreciate the invitation.

just try and ask the question of what that roam would mean? and what would it look like? i think the key point to understand is yes, next week is almost the starpt of the i shall shoe. it's not the end of the issue. the yes vote will be the start of a very complicated dwors proceedings. but it's going to be a very complicated tgs around process. >> as we speak today, the bisic outlines are still very unclear.

they haven't been resolved. that's one of the keyish views in the debate. scotland likes to think it's more pro-urine penal nan testimony rest of the uk. opinion polls show that's true, some say that's not true. but it's very much a core plart of the platform for the bigger, braughter wofrld.

it's not necessarily majorly clear. there are three potential obstacles. spain is the where you know that most likely has a reality problem with scotland becoming what they use. and so even though it might be unlikely to ultimately rejeeblgt joblgt its beryl ship, to drag things out torks make things difficult. toe show that there is a price to be paed for taking this move. there's a question that the u.k. would ultimately back it. it seems unlike lie that at the end of the day, they're going to

say no. scott land cannot become part of the e.u. until both sides have signed off on the divorce agreement sochlt that's another factor. and the third bid is the euro factor: scotland would have to be part of the euro and i think they're too afraid to. . but it's going to be a pain vl and difficult association. stlarly, scott hants to become

part of nado. that's not going to be a completely simple negotiation, either. can i mention that the -- i'm a very, very imply player. there ice also a sort of anti-american populism that's hard of pictures. they took a lot about america's illegal wars: and then skotland would snot be use neek. that's the kind of competition to kind of con serm americas k

sdmoump back. it's committed to maintain a certain amount of deferns spending. it's all sorts of pressures of an independent skopish govrt. and sthen, po ten rnlly, pain is that ultimately i these problems, these po ten rnl obstacles with locks congressing. with then e then, it would be a tig sieve cant role. >> if you want to engs the u,issue? the final ones are the currency issue.

>> chal lirks felts that it was a way to sord things out. >> i think this is the key issue. i think there's no easy path on the currency issue. there would be the euro option. that's not very much the option fsh all of the pry vaults mean has in 52 years. >> ultimately, that would be the economic beck mitch to grif it the flnd n a the lompk run. but the path to establishing imts own currency would be did i

have kulgt. i em oor i lots of barn os? that hun ral. there's a real risk before scotland every got to the danger of having vishd e vedble, ind den dent involvings scott lajd koernting to use, bud not guilty being parlt of the arage. s oovlt u.k. that's technically, entirely possible. by there are lots of problems with that, as well. so to defend the banking system or to have a bank stop, i probably need to build up some kind of reserve tund.

and for all of those reasons, it's entirely understandable why it's putting hitsz mj is renegotiating the 2er78s fvr kpits teshlt. so that's scot lachbd with,i deally, under this. from the independent scene, that makes kbleet sense. it really makes sense for england if you'd like the rest of the u.k. i think for economic reasons abds for political r.n.s, the ek

spemt e nem no, ma'amic region bud the all the risks are on the one side. if scott land got into trouble, england would have the resources to bail it out. >> i can see they bant to soond up. it's to go listening a hanger. >> and everyone if they did decide to sign up to currency union, the price that they would asked for. philadelphia be very, very rinl. fiscal rules. public spenling: mplts ern

though scott larnd would kbet thoor r control. the oimply case of that is that e shen shlly would not a a gr d greed. >> my sometime in kot tand told me that, but i wund readily father or mothering through am avp are argument. pliltically, identity niece not guilty a msz e possible to pauding asleep 972 inches.

>> lets's into. sequel gk has the last clas first. on the weekend end ffr warden o hand,severalage iing as well. that's not happenings mplt that's not part of the depat. it is going to be a pretty at mos fear. it seems to be impossible for a prit iish. the nand of potential of the pafrdties.

sfr from p p from an edge english point of view, we want hours, but we quantity all the again fits playing in. so for both of those, knobbly noolt the kind that sdoltland would like. it seems to be a serble out squornl dpr skom lar ind it shows a very fraovac.

i'm lever it there. and we can kbelt into these inc.s. >> thank really thaxs vrks r thanks, deplait. the various to fif us the per smer e. for wavl what he wuld

be. what i loud like to ren is what the u.s. government essentially is speaking ant. this scottish roch ren dumb had think. and, also, if u.s. react if there is a yes vote. >> i think as juliette mentiond u the u.s. doesn't really talk about thissics mornd mplt it would just be rude to comment on the internal deliberations of a skem cattic county.

>> allow today have a le nit maryla god knows what's goi. >> i think they roix floempt very helpful to provehicle coding it. the u.s. weeg and it's created quite a fire storm in brim tan. another it turned it both soids kwar the wroo do thought have becomes a lagt nierk wlieng wiek.

it can't actually prediblgt very well in terms of public opinion. and, so, it's best to stay out of it. and i think that's reinforced by the sentn't that was lmt mentioned. that scots are sbh what averse being told what to to. but i think despite that abends u -- is that something we often forget as we talk about crises and u.s. action. but, in fact, as the sort of leader of the world, there is a strong bees toward center.

in'm l each of those examples, you eel seal that they very strongly straublgts to anoid any insided insided inned north dakota noo there was a pres dernt set. and i think that that view is reinforced in this particular case. d u.s. sees it as duoof itsds best friends. divorcing and that is nevada a p p never a joy spenss experience: is i think that even beyond that general issue, there's some real issues. i'll sort of go over them more direct lit from a u.s. perspective. i think the critical one is

clearly from the u.s. perspective. there is a general view that it's been described after jell roet e the u.k. or what remains in of it would turn inward. it would be more like ly to get out of 2017 which would if he werely sdrekts p strengthen british act swrichl in the world. overall might mean that the u.k. would no longer be able to play the kind of lead role in nato that it traditionally has. relate today this,id think

there's a fear of weakening and of nato and of the eu. the eu would turn inward, yet again, as it had to ne goish yat. and because it was make it more likely, a brit iish exit from a large father and mother news room. this gets at what the u.s. took a position against the neurowean union. it's a very strong, european union. for nato, contrary to want's been said, this has been there

about affirming at a rit equal hind m mooi spell ole hoisz i oond ft mersz ef another sdesht i smuf i e sderj ookd spet. if you look at the sum mitt last week, and the president's trip to estonia, you see a very many strong urge to assert nato unity. to assert nay today rp today strerkt the i don't mean owe std and the type of government that was dreebed with a difficult ne fwloeshuation over no brd veto. i think that -- well, i'll get that too r that a little

bitly. p stird reason is the question of pres dent. as fiona mentioned, a leader of cry meal ya has already mentioned scottish independence as a pres dent for what he would like to do. we've also heard a plechbs 06 th 6 now, that's going to be an increasingly hard question to answer. and is this spreads also aid cross the eu. and spain and other key u.s. al mys lewd cole o well roid sp re. sw i pi rewibted i would say sment. it tooks about the resz dent that this set.

so what will the u.s. do in the case of a yes volt? itsd's always also fair bet that the u.s. will return calm. they will broadly 5:00 september the out commonwealth of pennsylvania. and be urging in order to sort of make the best of a bad situation. a na fast resolution of force. they will quiet li, and, to some extent, behind the scenes, push for eu neighborship for scotland

on unreasonably fair terms. is there have been more slr hard negotiations on the turret. but i do think they would a weak member of nato to a non-member. there are, as was mentioned, plenty of nato members which have sort of romantic anti-american notions about -- particularly about the nuclear deterrent. and this fits into a wider debate. the next state won't welcome a new one, but i think it will prefer it to a nonmember to a sort of irish solution. the key point is that it has to be a negotiated solution, and a transition. i think very clearly the united states will push back against the idea that this referendum

represents a precedent for places like crimea, donetsk. and the way they will do that is by emphasizing the mutual decision nature that this was agreed by both sides, and that that was the critical feature which allows this type of referendum and type of separation. it must be agreed both by the region that is holding the referendum, and by the state in which the region belongs. and they will say that this is totally different from ukraine, or break-away product of george a&e. i think also and somewhat more speculatively, if the scots vote yes, the u.s. will reevaluate its decision to play a fairly hands-off role in the british

exit question for the european union. they'll still have the problem that i mentioned that it's not clear how weighing in will really help. but they'll have the precedent of not having weighed in, and not helped. typically the united states, you know, doesn't make the same mistake twice. it makes a new mistake. and so i think we'll see them play a more active role. and the argument that they'll use is that, because they have a stake in british membership in the european union, just as for example a country like britain would have a stake in the united states and nato. they would have every right to weigh in. i think they would be willing in a run-up to that referendum to make their opinion much more know if scotland votes yes. >> thank you, jeremy. obviously we've got a lot of issues here. and we only have a half an hour

left. so i want to bring in you, the audience. i see already lots of questions. i recognize quite a few people in the audience who have a stake in this issue. so i'll take three questions right away. we have microphones which will come around to you if you just wait a second. then i'll come back to our panel to ask them to comment on whichever the question is. two questions immediately here and then on the opposite side of the aisle that we'll take. please, at the back, wave, and let me know about your questions, too. please identify yourself for the audience. >> thank you. my name is -- [ inaudible ] -- but i do just want to bring up one thing. i would really hate for the impression to be left with the audience more widely, in fact, if you look at britain more

generally, you do see today plans for a stay of unity from outside the borders. from outside of scotland coming next wednesday. you also see -- and i recommend it very strongly, forgive me for getting slightly emotional on this matter -- the spectator magazine for people outside of scotland. writing in very personal words about why it is they would want the scottish people to vote. and it is their vote to stay in the united kingdom. that's probably all i've got to say, apart from my question, which obeying the rules of this seminar which, it's been suggested that perhaps a no would be less urgent. the situation in terms of what would happen afterwards. i would ask the panel, though, if the referendum has not shown and the campaign amongst it, that there is a wide feeling of disenfranchisement in scotland and in england and wales, and therefore, if it is in fact urgent, that there is some sort

of constitutional settlement not just in scotland, but more widely in the event of a no vote. thank you. >> thank you very much. across the aisle. >> darrell chandler, independent. can you relate everything you've said in this situation to ireland, first of all? and could there be a northern ireland type of situation where some area of scotland voted two-thirds to stay in the uk, and it would stay with the uk? and would ireland and scotland have better relations because they might end up using the euro, or could there even be a closer drawing of ireland to the uk because it's now kind of a club, that it's relatively bigger? >> thank you. across the aisle? >> i thank the panel for this

constructive survey of current matters, and wish to regret the absence of the eloquent governor of texas, the honorable rick perry, who has some views on secession as well. but everybody knows -- >> can you speak a little closer to the mic? i'm not sure we're picking this up. >> okay. i regretted the absence of rick perry from the panel. everybody knows that in england, that is in metropolitan england, scots play an enormously disproportionate role in the leaders&a( of institutions, cultural, academic, economic, and of course, some politics. and one wonders about the composition of the -- the social composition, each composition also -- of the two, maybe religious composition -- of the two parties, yes and no box in scotland.

is there a class gradient of some kind? it appears so from some of the discussions on television. but it would be good to know something simply about the social composition of the opposing parties. thanks very much. >> thank you very much for all of the questions. we'll come back again. this last question, i'd like to amplify on a little bit. in many of the meetings we've had at brookings, we've had several sessions on this. this is one of the issues that i think has confused a lot of people from the outside because scotland's referendum in terms of civic nationalism. a lot of people are trying to grasp, who are the people on either side, in terms of how to identify themselves. and issue of identity not really being put on the table here, but they've come up in other issues. geoff and i talked about this. and i think the panel reflects it. i'm from northern england, but my family has moved around the border area from scotland and northern england for years.

and you're in the u.s. and living in scotland. and geoff is from scotland living in the u.s. obviously representative of a larger uk entity. that's really the history of the united kingdom is one of constant migration. i think obviously, the previous exit to national self-determination, scotland had really was founded on the fact that there weren't enough people who identified themselves ethnically or culturally as scots to carry the day. the s&p has been based on the idea that it's a resident of scotland. no matter who they may be and how they may identify themselves. so this whole issue of identity still remains very important. obviously it was playing out as geoff was trying to suggest here in england. again, it does put the identity of great britain on the map.

many people in england are having a backlash about the idea of scotland wanting to leave. but there's also a larger issue that i would like to put out, as you think about responding to this, about the identity of britain, and british identity. the united kingdom is a kind of rather a description of a country that is great britain, but great britain is not the official name of the united kingdom. but it's been read about the united kingdom of scotland, wales and ireland, as well as england. it's become quite complicated, because, of course, the united kingdom is also a country of immigration. and many people have come from outside of the british isles. they're wondering how they're going to identify themselves on september 19th. there are all kinds of identities there, from bulgaria, to more recent immigrations. like many of the members of the british parliament, where you've

come from somewhere else. and we have many parliament members from germany, or from portugal and many other places. how do they identify themselves, all these south asian communities, and great britain. these are all issues that come out on the panel. but they've been part of the debate one way or the other. i want to go to charlie, juliet, and then geoff. but these are great questions. thank you. >> thank you very much for the questions. i'll try and tackle at least some of them. one of my areas of personal research interests, what do the english think. and i've done quite a bit of survey work in england. and i can endorse your comment that -- in a sense, the english do care. when we asked in april, we found 19% of people in england, in a very large survey, who thought scotland should be an inpe