aware that there is a strong interest here in political developments not just in scotland but across the united kingdom as a whole, and there is understandably, an interest in the implications of these developments for europe and for the wider international community. before we begin our discussion therefore, i want to provide a very brief overview of my thoughts on where the united kingdom and scotland stand now. and in doing that, i'll talk about two referendums and one election. i'll look back briefly on the referendum of scottish inld pence that took place last year and also at the uk general election that took place just last month, but i also look forward to the referendum on the united kingdom's membership of the european union which is

expected to take place sometime before the end of 2017. the exact timing of that referendum is not yet determined. now, as you probably guess or as you're probably able to guess, the first referendum on scottish independence which took place last september didn't tush outrn out exactly as i would have hoppeded that it would, but while that referendum didn't change scotland's constitutional position, it undoubtedly transformed scottish politics, and i would argue it has had a transformational effect on united kingdom politics as well. firstly, that referendum has made scotland one of the most politically engaged countries, i would argue, in the entire world. nearly everybody in scotland last year became intensely involved in a peaceful and

passionate debate about the kind of country they want to live in. and that debate has had lasting consequences. for example the election in the uk voter turnout was some 5 persian percentage points higher. people who hadn't had much interest in how the government was governed now understand that their voice matters. they feel involved in decision making in a way that hasn't happened before, certainly in my lifetime. so the referendum itself the expedience of the referendum has been good for scotland. we're more energized more informed and more empowered than we have ever been before. the result of that referendum also provided part of the context for last month as uk general election. to the casual observer, the uk

election, it resulted in the election of a majority conservative government, and so another term of david cameron as prime minister. when you look at that election in more detail something striking and much more complex emerges, because in many ways, there were actually four different elections taking place notice united kingdom last month. in each of the different nations of the united kingdom. and those elections had very different results. and the differences in those results have very significant implications for the uk, for the future of the uk and how it is governed as a country. so my party, the scottish national party won the election in scotland with us. judy just told you, 56 out of the 59 electoral constituencies in scotland. labor won the election in wales.

the conservatives won in england, with 60% of the seats there, and of course northern ireland has an i have different system of party politics. so there was no one, uniform result across the united kingdom. the multi-national united kingdom voted in four very different ways. and shortly before the election, i raised the question of what actually constitutes an electoral mandate when the nations are voting in different directions. in practical terms simply winning enough votes and seats in england can secure a parliamentary majority. but had that is achieved in only one of the four nations, the question arises what kind of mandates is that. the conservative party of course, has the right to form the government of the uk and has

indeed done that. but it was not the biggest party in three of the four nations of the uk. in fact far from it. so the legitimatesy of those other nations comes very clearly into focus. so as i discussed with the prime minister when we met after the election, what happens to the future of the united kingdom now in the years ahead will at least in part depend upon how responsively westminster deals with the reality that in political as well as in constitutional term, the uk is not a unit ary state. if the united kingdom is to remain in tact in the years to come, it must demonstrate and demonstrate very clearly that it can adapt to multi-national and

multi-party politics in a far more substantial manner than it has often done in the past. now here in the united states of course, you're very used to the idea of different governments making different choices about very significant issues, but that's not something that uk governments are used to for much of the last century. devolution not withstanding the uk has been a centralized state. but it's now increasingly clear for the uk as a whole, one size doesn't fit all, and a one size fits all approach is not going to fit the bill for the future. and political identities are relevant to the third point i want to talk about. the coming referendum on the uk's membership in the european youtubion. as i found in the united states

a matter of considerable interest. one thing is that the prime minister says that he wants to stay in the european union. both of the biggest uk parties say they want to stay in the european union. there's overwhelming soreupport, or so it seems in the westminster parliament, yet here we are in the united kingdom standing very close to the exit door to the eu. the prime minister is seeking to apiece with a european referendum in his own party or the united kingdom independence party are unlikely to be appeased by a renegotiated membership of the european union. that body of opinion is for the uk to exit the european union and nothing less. it seems effort seems odd in

the uk and it often does that this referendum is now looming. the uk government's approach seems especially odd to many people in scotland. in the general election last month, across the whole of the uk parties which want to leave the european union polled around 12% of the popular vote. in scott land that was less than 2%. 72% would opt to vote to remain in the european union with only28% saying they would vote to leave. and that's perhaps not surprising given the economic membership membership. in scotland, there are some 300,000 jobs that rely on exports to the european union. so membership in the european union is of tremendous

importance. so i would argue that the referendum simply isn't a priority. scott land could be taken out of the european union against our will. and that's why the european question is in some ways very directly linked to the question of how the uk is governed. at one of the themes of the scottish referendum last year articulated often very powerfully by those campaigning against scottish inld pence is that scotland is a valued and equal partner in a uk family of nations, and so surely, therefore, as many people in scotland would see, it shouldn't be possible for scotland's voice to be overruled in an eu referendum. and that's why the scottish government is arguing for a double majority in that referendum where the uk could only leave the eu if each of the

nations vote to leave e that sort of territorial requirement is often used in federal countries like canada and australia. and i think it's time to apply it to the united kingdom to give meaning to the phrase that the uk is a family of nations. i said last fwheek a speechl in brussels if scotland does find itself taken out of the european union against a vote to remain in. it could produce a demand for another independence referendum, which may well be unstoppable. but i would argue, and do argue that the uk government has it within their power to remove that possibility by agreeing to the double majority provision that we're putting forward. the referendum legislation could dem rate what we are so often told, that the uk government does see the uk as a family of nations, and i would posit that

that would be one very clear way in which the uk could do what i suggested earlier that it needs to do, demonstrate that it can adapt to a multi-national, multi multi-party system of politics. i think it's clear from observing politics in the united kingdom, these are momentous days for the uk. it brings challenges and considerable opportunities. the coming months and the coming years gives us a chance to secure greater autonomy for scotland allowing us to build a powerhouse economy and ensure a more equal society also provide an opportunity to secure better governance across the whole of the uk. and we will see a vote, which i hope, will reaffirm the place of ask the land and

scotland and the united kingdom. all of these are possible. none are guaranteed. they require constructive negotiation from political leaders right across the uk. from my part i'm determined that the scottish government will take the lead in making those arguments and contributing to those negotiations, because if we achieve these three objectives, it will be good for scotland. it will be good in my view, for every nation of the uk and it will secure our place in europe and the wider world. and by doing that, of course, it helps to strengthen our fremdships and alliances both here in the heart of the united states and right across the world. so thank you very much indeed for listening. and i am now thoroughly looking forward to the discussion that will follow. [ applause ] >> so first minister welcome and thank you for talking with us. you said in your remarks, you

raised the question about whether the conservative party victory in england as you put it, as only one of the four nations, only one of the four nations can be considered to have a mandates. my first question to you is if it's not a mandate, what is it? are you saying david cameron is not legitimately the leader of the uk? >> i'm not saying that. the constitution of the united kingdom as it stands at present is that david cameron is the prime minister. he got enough seats to form a government. and that's what he has done. the point i'm making is a point of political reality. although, because of the relative size of england compared to the other nations of the united kingdom, david cameron is able to form a government. my argument is that he needs to accept that in the other three nations of the united kingdom his party did not win. and therefore, in how he governs

the country that's something that he should take account of, and he should respond to the democratic wishes as they were expressed in scotland and wales and in northern ireland. and in many respects, in how he respond to that political reality will determine at least in part how the united kingdom develops over the coming years. you know for people in scotland right now, we're watching quite carefully to see how david cameron's government responds, if it responds then the message people will take is that westminster is adaptive, it can serve scotland better, if it doesn't, that message will be a clear one. scotland and the united kingdom, the british isles are part in that regard loss of whether scotland becomes in the future

at some point in the future an independent country, you know, is always integral, but we have a reality. the united kingdom is not and never has been a unitary state. it is a nation of four different nations. we've seen through devolution an asymmetry in how the united kingdom is governed. we've seen different priorities emerge in each of the nations and that brings into sharp focus the relationship between a scottish government and the united kingdom government. i think it's a big test over the years to come over the united kingdom, the construct that is the united kingdom. is it adaptable and responsive, can it accommodate the different views and different directions in which each of its nations wants to go in? or will it prove to be unresponsive, in which case, perhaps, and i simply say perhaps, the united kingdom will

not continue as the construct that it is. >> watching from the other side of the atlantic, i think many americans look at what's going on over there and say well if scotland were to breakaway were to become independent, that greatly weakens the united kingdom, what do you say to in i've never held that view. and one of the things i've been talking about a lot this weekend, the united states is about if scotland had become an independent country, or if we ever do in the future, you know stress the point i made in my opening remarks, there is no second independence referendum on the immediate horizon. so we're talking hypothetically at the moment. the united states, for example, in that scenario would go from having one close ally, the united kingdom would go to having two close allies, the united kingdom and scotland. i don't think that weakens the united kingdom.

scotland would always see as its closest ally, defending the security of the united kingdom contributing to the security of the rest of the world as england and the remainder of the united kingdom. in many ways i think it's there to strengthen the position and the united kingdom, i think can be strengthened by demonstrating how it responds to the will of people in its constituent parts. >> well, in the maneeantime, while there's not an action right now to move toward independence there clearly are, you clearly are looking at ways to have scotland exert more authority over its own affairs. your deputy leader stewart hosy said right now said that the s&p is go-- snp is going to push for taxing and funding.

>> short of scotland being independent, we want to have maximum powers. i'm very impressed that you've managed to read the scotsman before i have. >> i have a feeling that's not so. >> so, yes, that is the position of the snp. now, as a devolved part of the united kingdom there are some restrictions, though, in the devolution of tax posed. it would mean that vat rates value-added tax rates, couldn't be set different in scotland. there are some restrictions. but we want maximum fiscal powers within the united kingdom context. why do we want that? not for its own sake, but because the more powers we have the more fiscal responsibility we have the more ability we have to shape things like our system of social security, the more able we will be to grow our

economy, to make sure we're doing the things and pursuing the policies that help us to attract investment and jobs and grow our economy faerls and more sustainably. so its powers and we'll make those arguments in the westminster parliament as the debate for autonomy of scotland continues over the weeking and months to come. >> so you're not saying it's happening imminently the push to have this fiscal autonomy. >> well, there is legislation going through the house of commons right now. it's just started to extend the powers of the scottish parliament in what i would argue are reasonably limited way. so as part of that legislative process, we will seek to make amendments to extend the autonomy of the scottish parliament. and i think what you've been reading in the scottsman today is

the amendment that we're moving for. >> this would cost as much as $10 billion a year, cost scotland that much. is that a deterrent? >> that analysis looks at the fiscal position of scotland right now and finds that not surprisingly, scotland is in deficit, just as the uk is in deficit. our rev nahs are not large enough to cover all of our spendings. the position the united states is if, the position many countries across the world are in. that's what that analysis is about. now countries that are in deficit want to pursue policies that grow their revenues through economic growth so they can pay down the deficit and achieve fiscal balance. my argument for fiscal autonomy is that it equips the scottish government with greater levers and greater powers and responsibility to do just that. so it introduces an ability for

us to tackle the fact that we, like many other countries right now, are in a fiscal deficit position. >> i guess my question is, how much of a priority is this the first thing you're going to be pushing for in the coming weeks and months? >> it terming of the constitutional debate, yes, we will be arguing that case for maximum powers for the scottish parliament. but my priority on a daily basis as the leader of any government will be the economy in scotland how we grow jobs in scotland. how we attract investment, how we make sure that our public services, like our national health service and education system are performing well and delivering quality services. so these are my daily preoccupations. but in terms of how the constitutional future of scotland develops we will be seeking to argue for as much autonomy for the scottish government as possible. >> is it a good thing if scotland has its own foreign policy? >> well if scotland had been an

independent country, we would have had responsibility for foreign policy as part of that. we're not in that position. foreign policy remains the preserve of the united kingdom government. but i do think it is good for an outward looking internationalist country with an outward-looking internationalist country as the one i lead is to have a voice and influence the direction of uk foreign policy, and we will seek to do that. we seek to do that in a very constructive way. there are, you know, some differences in outlook in foreign policy between the uk government and scottish government. but there are many, many arias which we share a view. and we would be and are supportive of the uk government. so we would seek to have our voice heard and to influence the direction of foreign policy as much as we can. but, of course it is at the moment our responsibility of the uk government. >> so for an american audience,

what's most important for us to understand to the extent it's important at all. what's important for us to understand about where are the similarities and where are the differences when it comes to relationships with the u.s. you've talked about the eu your strong view that the uk should stay part of the eu, but how would you flesh that out? >> what i would say about my party and my government and how we conduct ourselves on these matters be with the united kingdom we are internationalists and outward-looking. >> we would be and if scotland had voted to be independent this would be absolutely the case. we would consider ourselves to be a key ally of the united states. we want to work constructively within the world community to make sure that we are playing our part in resolving some of the conflicts and some of the issue of challenge that we live with in the modern world. we would want to be a continuing

member of the nato alliance, to play our part in collective security. so the message that we very strongly articulated during the referendum and will continue to, is the international community would have nothing to fear from an independent scotland. we're not going to be independent right at the moment, but if that happens in the future then the international community would find in scotland a constructive and positive ally in terms of the many issues that we're dealing with and facing today. >> what do you make, first minister, of all the attention you've been getting since since the last month? really since last november, but most of all in the last few months? >> i think it's good for scotland. there has been more international attention on scotland as a country in the past two or three years than i can ever remember of about. now last year we had a wonderful coincidence of different events. we hosted in the city of

glasgow, the commonwealth games. a few weeks later we hosted the ryder cup, big international sporting events that put the focus on scotland. most countries probably would have thought that would be enough to going on with for one year, but we decided we might get bored so we had a referendum on independence in between those two events, but all of that combined to put a spotlight on scotland that i think in many ways continues to this day. and my view is a very simple one. we should capitalize on that. we should make the most of that. we should use that to encourage business and companies to invest in scotland. and the message i've been taking around new york and washington this week is that simple. scotland's a great place to live in, to work in. to do business in, to invest in. so if you're seeing scotland on television, reading about it in your newspapers and you fancy finding out more, then please come to visit. come to invest. come to study.

because we're a fantastic country for all of that. >> so finally, before we take questions it from the audience, how do you, are you getting done on this trip what you want to get done in this official trip to washington in. >> yes i'm extremely happy with how this trip has gone. you know let me just say, firstly, we've had a fantastic reception from everybody we have met in the united states both in new york and washington and we're very grateful for that, but the folk of the trip has been largely trade and economy folk focussed. i in new york met with two companies that were announcing new investment in scotland. so from that point of view it was very successful. but the other purpose has been to see very directly to the united states audience that scotland sees itself as your friend and your al lieally.

>> so the u.s. has nothing to fear from scotland. >> nothing whatsoever. on the contrary. >> all right first minister let's take questions now from the audience. i would ask you to -- i believe we have microphones. there's one. maybe there's another one. wait for the microphone. we would ask you to speak directly into it. we would ask you to stand up give us your name, your affiliation. and let's see who wanting tos to go first. think over here this gentleman. >> gavin wilson. we met yesterday. and the topic was economics. today it's politics. if i were to choose a passport i would choose a scottish one. i want to ask you about political legitimacy regarding the current government of the uk. london has a larger population

than scotland. and the conservatives have lost the election in london as well. so one question is, are the conservatives legitimate rulers of london in the same way you mentioned scotland. and secondly my wife's family is from scotland and they have a distinct identity. and if scottland were independent, would otny be allowed to be independent. >> thank you for that question. >> orkny being three parts of scotland that didn't vote snp but came close. maybe in the future we'll be able to change that.

in a straight constitutional sense, the government of the uk you know, is let in every part of the uk. i don't question that. i'm making a political point about the need for in a multi-national state of different nations, voting in different ways, a sensible government would be responsive to that. and david cameron and his government will demonstrate that they understand that whether they like or not people in scotland didn't vote for his government and through their policies and their aprech and their demeanor towards scotland demonstrate that they understand that. so that's the point i'm making. and london, of course, has its own mayor its own devolved government in that sense but the wider point in this, and this is to your point about orkny. i think most people in the united kingdom would make this distinction as far as regions. scotland is a nation ago is

england, wales and northern ireland. that brings up particular importance as to the voting patterns and different constitutional patterns. in terms of orkny i spent time there in the runup to the independence referendum. i've been there since then as well. there is no great appetite in orkny or shetland if scotland were to be independent for them to be independent from scotland. contrary to how it's occasionally presented in the united kingdom,clamor. we are looking at what powers and responsibilities we devolve

from etdden borough. my point here is not to see david cameron is not a legitimate prime minister as far as scotland is concerned. no, whether i want him to be or not is neither here nor there. in a constitutional sense, he is. but the political reality means that if he simply acts as if's got to same mandate in every part of the uk he won't be acting in a way that is strengthen being the uk and the other part of the country. i think he will be acting in a way that will weaken the uk in that respect. >> over here? >> i'm charlie stevenson. i teach at sies. since you've opened the door to what a scottish policy would be, what are your views on what the uk policy should be in ukraine

and syria? >> that's a good example of where the scottish government supports the uk position on ukraine and russia we're supportive of the international community's position. we're supportive of the sanctions against russia and have been a voice of support for the uk for the government's position and a voice of support wider than that, for the international community's position. similarly, on isil, syria and iraq, we support the international community. isil is one of the most severe threats because of the implications of that. so do not, do not think that the snp and the scottish government takes a markedly different position on the uk government on the vast majority of international issues. we don't. we are a responsible

participant, responsible voice when it comes to these matters, and on both of these issues you will mott find any great difference on our pos and the position of the united kingdom government. >> can you foresee a time when you might take a different view? >> my party wasn't in government at this point in our recent history. but my party took a very different view over the war in iraq and the 2003 invasion of iraq. we opposed that conflict. so there are some issues where we have taken a different view. there may well be issues in the future where we take a different view but, you know, the war in iraq, we were not alone in the international community in terms of countries that thought the invasion of iraq and what followed on from that was the wrong direction to take but we would always be and always will be a responsible voice in terms of these international issues. >> right here in the front row.

>> thank you, marissa with northrup grummond. should there be in the future an independent scotland, i think one of the greatest of concerns in the u.s. is how the defense structure would be disentangled. and i wonder if you would speak about your advice for how defense, how defense would be handled if scotland were to be independent. >> what we set out in the referendum last year very significant detail how an independent scotland would configure its defense forces and how those defense forces would then work and cooperate with defense forces across the rest of the united kingdom the european union and internationally. if you have an interest in that, i would go into detail and send you the work we did around that. an independent scotland if we had voted to become independent

would have established our own defense force, army, navy, an air force. it would have taken a period of years to make that transition. but not withstanding the distinct defense forces on an independent scotland would be established. they would have inevitably worked very closely and in an intergreated way with the defense forces of the united kingdom. it's an island. the defense of scotland is important to the defense of england. it is inconceivable in any future constitutional arrangement that the defense forces of any part would not work coe thesively. the difference of opinion between the scottish government and the united kingdom government on defense, and i respect the fact this is a difference of opinion between the scottish government and the united states government is the future of the uk's nuclear

deterrent. partly, that is a disagreement an honest disagreement in principle. but in part, it's also a very practical concern that we have about the implications for our convinceal defense forces of plan to renew the nuclear tri dent. there is a current debate, i know the president of the united states is intensely interested in, about the percentage of gdp that's spent on defense in the united kingdom. one of the concerns we have is the more that defense expenditure is taken up with trident, the less expenditure pea have on the conventional forces that the country really needs to secure itself and to contribute to defense internationally. i mane, one example i often use which illustrates and highlights

what i think is almost a neglect of our conventional defense forces is our own maritime surveillance. as i said a moment ago, britain is an island. to scotland maritime protection and surveillance is very important. you know, we've got a large oil industry fishing industry, so these maritime interests are extremely important to us. the uk doesn't have any maritime patrol aircraft. so towards the end of last year when there was suspicion that russian submarines were patrolling waters we didn't have what we needed and had to draw on help elsewhere. we need forces capable of defending the united kingdom but also contributing positively and appropriately to international efforts as well. >> let's see, i'm trying to go back and forth across the room. right there.

thank you. >> diana negra ponte. with the decline in employment in the energy and energy services, what are the areas that you see as the potential sources of prosperity in the next five years, and how willing are you to accept new migrants whether they be from within the the 28 or north africa to participate in those new arias of productivity. >> thank you very much indeed. that's a very good question. scotland's oil and gas resource like the oil and gas resources of other countries are blessed to have those who natural resources. they are finite resources. that said oil and gas will continue to be a considerable source of revenue for scotland and for the united kingdom for

many many years to come. that is estimated to be up to 24 billion barrels of extractible oil left in the north sea, so it's an industry that has a good, strong future ahead of it, but you're absolutely correct that it is a few night resource. scotland is in the very lucky position of not simply being an oil-producing country. we also happen to have some of europe's best and biggest potential, our own renewable energy. so we're also a leader when it comes to wind energy. wave and tidal energy and some of the new technologies around low-carbon energy sources. so that's a growth area for scotland and an area that we are investing in and encouraging greatly. we're also very lucky to have a number of strong sectors in our economy that i would suggest are a good effect on the future.

life sciences creative industries our food and drink exports, which are enjoyed by many in the united states and many other countries across the world. one of the things that's important to understand about the scottish economy is not withstanding oil and gas tends to be very associated with the scottish economy we're not dependent on oil and gas. we have a rich economy,. one of the companies i spoke about having met in new york just announced an investment in scotland is a united states company active in the space sector, the manufacture of nano satellites. they've just announced a major investment in scotland, because that's one of the other areas that scotland seems to have that our universities are able of

producing a real competitive advantage. one of the things we're doing which doesn't make us unique but important is increasingly we're lucky in scotland. we've got per head of population we have more top universities. so we're in a very good position in terms of the quality of our education. but our business sectors and university sectors are working hand in glove to make sure we're able to maximize those competitive advantages we've got. briefly on immigration scotland welcomes immigration, and we welcome migrant workers to scotland. there are considerable numbers of polish people and people from other european union member states living in and working in scotland. actually, not withstanding the debate that is very, very active in the uk just now associated with the european union question, european migrants make

a positive of mark on our economy. we welcome migrants with the task of growing our economy. we've got in scotland an organization called talent scotland where not as a public organization helps companies scour the world looking for talent that can then fill skilled shortages of some of our key sectors. so we have an open economy and an open society and we welcome very much the contribution that workers from outside make to scotland's economy. >> in the very back there? >> good morning. does it and werewrangsle you that you were not welcomed in the white house while every royal family member has an appointment in the oval office? >> no. not in the slightest. we've had a fantastic reception

in the united states. the courtesy shown towards me towards the scottish government has been fantastic, but also the genuine interest in scotland and where we stand within the united kingdom, within the european union, within the wilder world has been absolutely first class. so i have no complaints and no and wericals at all with my visit this week. >> right there, row back. mm-hm. >> nelson cunningham with mclar at this associates. they are from ayrshire. my question has to do with monetary issues. what currency would an independent scotland wish to have? >> i hail from ayrshire. it's my home in scotland. it's where i come from so i can report back that the

independence movement in ayrshire is alive and well and prospering. the proposition on currency that we put forward during the independence referendum was an independent scotland would continue to use sterling. we would continue to use the the british pound. partly, because it is our currency. it's our currency now, and there's no reason why it wouldn't continue to be our curbsy in the future. some people see it as a hotly debated issue in the independence referendum. i won't go into all the ins and outs of it. but many people will say well how could scotland and england share a currency, look what's happening in the euro zone? i think the key point to put across there and i'm overly simplifying here, but the problems in the euro zone come from partly because the poorest parts of greece and the richest parts of germany have been shoe

horned into one currency. that would not be the case in scotland. the economies of scotland and england are very closely aligned. we would have been what many would have termed an optimal currency zone. levels of employment are very very similar. so may belief then and my belief now is that not only should scotland continue to use the british pound if we became independent, but it would be workable and valuable and successful for us to do so. >> so there won't be a new scottish mint. >> well, we have our own scottish bank. the scottish bank's already produced scottish bank notes. so if you go to the united kingdom and you happen to go to scott land you'll get a pound note worth exactly the same amount in england, but it will have its own scottish stamp on it. >> yes, right here, second row. >> thank you, first minister fiona hill from the brookings institution. you've spoken really egg kwentsly on so many issue here.

and i think there's one area where people are really looking to scotland. within the united kingdom here, and internationally, which is on this issue that you expressed about being an open economy, an open society. and a country that's trying to play a very responsible role in governance, and especially in conflicts. as you all know, there's a lot of scrutiny on scotland right now about this very question that you raised, about scotland being a nation and not just a region. we have elections coming up in spain at the end of this year where the question about catalonia and its independence will be raised. and in fact, the conflict about ukraine and russia is what is a nation and what is a region. i think it's how in a modern era where you have so much immigration, as you said. scotland has a lot of immigrants, people who wouldn't hail back to ayrshire or

anywhere. and skothscots are a migrant nation themselves. it's not just the scots born recently, but many generations of scots have moved about for hundreds of years, how in this modern age where it's difficult to define a nation can scotland play a role as a model with these conflicts. and one of the big issues in the united kingdom itself, the future of the peace process and what would happen if scotland did become independent. so i'm wondering how you can address this issue. what does a nation mean in a modern context and how can scotland really be a model? >> i think that's a very good question. and the contribution scotland can make in the area you're talking about here is not to intervene or start to express opinions if whether catalonia should be independent or not, but how we seek to resolve these

debating. to get to the heart of your question, what is a nation in the modern world. scotland's in the happy position of its territory not being disputed. the borders are well understood and well-settled and agreed without any real disputes or the territorial limits of the nation of scotland are understood, but, of course, what is a nation is a more complex question and this is where scottish nationalism, if i can use that term, which is often a pejorative term is where scottish nationalism offers a positive role model for the rest of the world. because my definition of what it means to be scottish. the nation, the territorial limits of the nation are well-defined, but what it means to be scottish in may view is-- my view is whether or not you choose to live there. it doesn't matter to me whether

you come from england, the united states, pakistan, india, poland or any other part of the world. if scott land is your home, if you live there if you work there, if you make a contribution, you are scottish and have as much right as i do to influence the future direction of the country. so in the independence referendum, polish migrants who were living in scotland had a vote. they were allowed to vote in the referendum, just as people who live in scotland but were born in england or any other part of the european union had the right to vote. so that's the civic approach to nationalism that is absolutely at the heart of the snp's approach to this question. and what does that do for the rest the world? it demonstrates, and i think a referendum experience demonstrated this very powerfully, that you can resolve these complex questions of nation hood, of governance of identity, in an entirely

peaceful and democratic fashion, and that's example weigh hold up to the rest of the world. the issue of scottish independence has been debated with an ebb and flow in intensity for 300 years, since scott land became part of the union. that question has never gone away. it's always been there. as i say, it's come and gone in terms of its level of krin tensity. but in modern times, in modern times, not a single drop of blood has been shed in that debate on either side. a fantastic example to set for the rest of the world. so that's what we offer. it's not for us to see in any other part of the world whether a particular people or particular nation should opt to do as we do and argue to be independent, but in terms of the process of determining these things we should absolutely fly the flag for how we've chosen to do it. >> what about the other part of her question about the effect on the northern ireland peace process? >> this was an issue that

occasionally was talked about during the referendum campaign. i do not believe in you know, i don't think that there are many people in northern ireland or indeed across the rest of the uk who would have seriously argued that a vote for scottish independence would have compromised the peace process. no. i don't want to undermine or challenge the problems that northern ireland face. but thankfully it's very well-established in northern ireland. whatever our views on the constitutional views on the united kingdom, they're committed to making sure that peace process remains effective. the establishment of a forum across the british isles called the british isle council. i'll be attending in dublin the

ex end of next week. it brings together administrations of scotland wales and northern ireland isle of man and jersey, gurnsy. that gives life to the british isles and how we seek to cooperate and force a dialog win the british isles. if scott land had become an independent country, we would still be part of the british isles and have operated in that forum. that is a very strong representation of how those kind of arrangements can work and itself was one of the outcomes of the peace process in northern ireland. so that, i'm glad to see that we all agree on is the importance of that peace process and the continuation is beyond and above any of these other debates. >> another question? let's see, here. and then i'll go back. >> hi, my name is steven

clairemont. i work for an organization called "every child matters." recently the united states congress has been looking into the uk as a model. particularly universal credit and a lot of reforms implemented by the cameron government. what is your perspective on that, and what should u.s. policymakers be worried about the unintended consequences of looking to that as a model? >> don't do it would be my advice. i think you've got to draw a distinction between the theory of welfare reform and the practice. universal credit is bringing together all the different social security benefits into one single payment and making sure that that operates in a way that as people move into work they don't fall off a cliff in term of the benefits that are called away, outweighing the benefits they get from starting to earn. so in theory it's a good idea,

but it's not working that way in practice, because the process of reform has been accompanied by a very significant cut on expenditure expenditure. so what you find as the new systems come into place is the expenditure cuts have made some of the people who have been intending to benefit from welfare reform have actually been some of the biggest losers and the government has been tougher on people who don't want to work. people who want to shuck responsibility and lie in their beds all day while the rest of us are out thayerere working. that's not the reality of what's happened. the people who have suffered in the last couple years the most from welfare reform in the united kingdom have been people with disabilities disabled benefits have been significantly cut. single parents and particularly

women, and those in employment for low wages, they have between them taken the biggest hit. so you may have something to learn from the theory of uk welfare reform. i would argue that you should shy away from some of the practical application of that. >> question in the back? >> hi astrid kendall from google. on your comments about the independence movement being a model of the peaceful nature. i'm curious on your thoughts. did social media orts internet or technology play a role that was different now in this particular. >> social media played a massive role in the independence referendum in scotland. it was at the margins perhaps less. but in the positive, it opened up, it helped to open up the debate to many, many more people than it otherwise would have taken part. so you had in the referendum a population that was just naturally more keen to get

engaged, because it was a big question and a big responsibility for everybody to decide how they were going to vote. so you had that desire to be engaged. what social media did was give people the means to be more engaged. they could access information in a way that suited them. they could often find exactly ha they were wanting to know about in a way that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to do. and people shared views and shared information in a way that wouldn't have been possible without facebook and twitter and social media generally. so it was a positive in my view. social might yeah,edia has a down side. because it gives to the minority and is a minority in scotland and the uk and i'm sure in the united states, a minority of more extreme opinion that is not very tolerant of other people's views and just wants to hurl abuse at people who don't agree with them. that minority of people have always been there, but social might yeah now gives them a platform to now communicate with the wider world that they

wouldn't have had. and it occasionally appeared as if that minority was bigger than it was. and at times it threatened to taint the atmosphere. now i don't think it did overall. but sometimes that was the danger. so that's the down side of social media but i think it's hugely outweighed by the positive. it continues to have a all this transformational role in the democratic engagement that we saw in scotland around the elections as well. >> so we have time for one more question and reminding everybody this is on the record. and i think that's been obvious. >> now you tell me. [ laughter ] >> my name is jerry livingston. i'm not sure i should pose this question. our family was banished from scotland in 1662 after the restoration of charles ii but nevertheless, my question relates to is there more that

can be done to mobilize the day as pra for the interest of scotland. the irish are very good. can scotland do the same? >> can i say i'm very sad were you banished. i hereby formally lift the ban, okay? you're welcome back. anytime you like. and i'll greet you at the airport. it's a very good question sir. yeah. the diaspora, it's enormous and hugely powerful. i was joking last night at the reception at the embassy, there are more people in this country who claim to be scottish than there are in scotland. we've got population of 5 million that are i think official estimates and they're probably an underestimate that there are 10 million people in the united states who claim a scottish connection. so the diaspora is a huge

connection. we're working to use the talents and skills to fly the flag for scotland. and we have an office here in washington if you want to connect with them before the end. so we're working very hard to do that. we have a network called global scots. if anyone here wants to be a global scot please come forward. but we're working hard on that and doing very well through our staff here. so if anybody here has scottish connections or just wishes they were scottish, please feel free to offer your services. we'd be delighted to take you up on it. >> so scots of america rise up, is that? please join me in thanking the first minister.

and -- [ applause ] -- and i would just ask you to keep your seats until she leaves the room. thank you.