>> bbc host the second debate. meant -- 90 minute discussion happen and glasgow. before, a local reporter, severin carrell. >> scottish voters go to the polls to decide to whether to remain part of the u.k. he is a scotland correspondent with "the guardian" and give us a major players and some the

arguments they are making. the 2 major players are governments that control scotland and the scottish government which has control over domestic policy through the parliament. who is inx salmond, charge of the scotland party. opposing him and to be snp is a coalition of the conservative party and at the liberal democrats that run the u.k. government from london. both the governments and other say in that have a minor the way scotland is run. the u.k. labour party which is based on the number of people, at least the largest party in scotland, is aligned with the u.k. government in opposing. the scottish national party and smaller parties such as central

scottish agreement party and a couple of socialist parties. and a list of another individuals who might vote for labour party or liberal democrats that are coming on -- they believe leaving the u.k. would be better for scotland. >> you're been covering this for a while now. which aspect have you been focusing on and this referendum? for votersr issues are the strength and future of the economy in scotland and the significant allied issues is of the currency which is independent the scotland might use. and the north sea oil and gas reserves, which are very large part. even though, the part of the u.k.'s balance of trade and --olar in would control scotland would control of approximately 90% of the gas reserves and the bigger question

is which -- which police off two more of those issues if scotland would suffer or profit for being part of a much larger state and the future. one of the issues for the campaign is often the case or sometimes, scotland would be as part of aled greater u.k. state. in 2010, they became a coalition of the conservative party, the liberal democrat party. and they got 12 of 59 mps. it is this resentment. such as welfare in scotland and the taxation system. war forher we go to instance can be decided in london by a government which does not necessarily have the constant of the scottish people.

>> we are going to be joining you on a debate that happening at 3:30 p.m. eastern and we will have live coverage on c-span. between the first inventor of scotland alex salmond and also alistair darling who is in charge of his better together campaign. what can we expect here? >> what you will expect to hear is most of the issues i have raised. one thing i have not mentioned that is part of the -- the main area of dispute at the moment between the yes campaign and the other campaign is over the .irection of welfare policy the future of the national health service. issues that are central to most political arguments. and we expect alex salmond to really be much more aggressive, much more negative and he takes on alistair darling. when they last met on the fifth

of august for debate on the broadcast tv, the view is that mr. alex salmond lost the debate. the issue for him is the yes campaign is a 14% behind in the polls on average. tohas a less opportunity engage with a huge audience so it will be broadcast live across much moreo be persuasive and coherent case over independence. the pressure is on him to win. , what wehe public say call a draw is a they call out -- come out even and that is good for the no campaign. they just have to maintain their lead in the polls. and make it the best they possibly can. >> are their minds pretty much made up already or will it have a sway either way? >> that is a very good question. most voters have made up their minds.

there is this contest at the moment for the hundreds of scots who may not yet have decided. trying to establish how many of is is quite difficult. you have to work out how you would judge whether someone is undecided or wavering. we can estimate that half a million scottish voters which is electorate, either oruinely undecided stuttering. they may think they will vote yes or no, but did they are not entirely convinced about the yes or no campaign's arguments. most --ate could be the one of the most significant. there's skepticism about how important these debates are. alike in the united states where you have the presidential election and it is really decided, the person who will lead to the country, the presidential thing is about

individuals. personalities. this campaign is not. much a broader. it is about the future of the country. the future of the economy and whether what people feel more comfortable about in the best long-term future for the company. alex salmond could be the first first minister of scotland and could be voted out of power in 2016. his personality when it comes down to it, when people go to the polls, that will not be thinking about him, they will be think about themselves and what is best for them and their children and country. time.appreciate your for those of us who want to fall your tweet and beyond, they can find you and your twitter handle @severincarrell. severin, thanks for the insight. >> no problem. thank you.

>> it will decide scotland's future with the eyes of the world watching and the referendum edging ever closer. welcome to glasgow. lmond versus darling. [applause] >> hello, and welcome to

glasgow, as the independence referendum campaign enters its final stages, we brought two of the biggest names in politics. alex salmond leads the scottish national party, which has been campaigning independence party for 18 years. alistair darling is a member of the british parliament. it is the second time that that men have gone head to head, and they do so before the first ballots go out. for one in 6 voters, it is the eve of the poll. in the next 90 minutes, our guests will face questions from members of our audience, from me, and from one another. i will explain more about the format in a moment. first, an opportunity for both men to make opening statements.

alex salmond won the coin toss, and has chosen to go first, so you have two minutes. >> thank you. this is an extraordinary time for us all. the eyes of the world are indeed focused on scotland. twice before in recent history we have stood at the crossroads. in 1979, we did not get the parliament we voted for, and instead have gone 18 years with tory government. margaret thatcher. and the poll tax to boot. in 1997, we took our opportunity, and since the parliament came to scotland, life has been better. we introduced free care for the elderly. removed tuition fees for the next generation of students. we helped the old by providing security and gave opportunity to the young. when we have problems like the current threat to the -- shipyards, we acted decisively

to save jobs. but it is much, far too much, that is still controlled at westminster. we cannot stop the bedroom tax rate. we cannot stop illegal wars. we cannot stop the spread of -- in this prosperous country. we cannot stop countless billions being wasted on weapons of mass destruction. now we have the opportunity to change all that. three weeks on thursday, we can take matters into scottish hands. next to no one wants to go back. more scots want to finish the home rule charter. absolutely no one will run the affairs of this country better than the people who live and work in scotland. no one cares more about scotland. just like in 1979, they cannot tell us we cannot do it.

we can't do whatever other country takes for granted. just like them, they are wrong. we are a rich nation, a resourceful people. we can create a prosperous nation, a real vision for the people of scotland. this is our time. it is our moment. let us do it now. [applause] >> our second opening statement comes from alistair darling. mr. darling, you also have two minutes. >> this is it. he is asking us to take his word for it on everything. no plan b for anything. trust what he says. sorry, i can't. the basic difference between mr. salmond and me, his first priority is to create a separate state, no matter what the risk and what the cost.

while he has been talking the last two years, i've been listening. i know that people want change, but they also want security on jobs, pensions, on their children's future. that is why my messages that no thanks will not mean no change. that is why there will be more power on taxes, welfare, it makes sense to decide here. we have delivered before, and we will deliver again. tomorrow, we scots will start voting by post. so we need answers, tonight, right here, and right now. the currency, no answers. let me tell you why currency matters. currency is about jobs in huge numbers. currency is about what we pay at the shop. it is about interest rates, mortgages, and the value of our pensions. critically, the money we use is

about being able to pay for the public service upon which we all depend. that is the real threat to our national health service, not the ones he is trying to scare us with. the questions have grown. what about oil? last week the north sea oil expert ian wood issued a stark warning. again, are we going to place all our bets on alex salmond alone being right? we don't need to take that risk. the united kingdom does not share risks and rewards with our neighbors. the part of something bigger gives us opportunity and security as well as our scottish identity and decision-making. this is a decision for which there is no turning back. but our children and the generations that follow will have to live with that decision. you might hear good lines from him, but good lines are not always good answers.

it's answers now we need. we have to say no thanks. [applause] >> thank you, both, for those opening remarks. you could say that tonight's debate is in four sections because there will be questions on the economy, on scotland at home, on scotland's place in the world, and what happens after the referendum. questions will come from members of our audience. 200 people have been selected to include a balance of yes and no supporters as well as undecided reporters. others have been invited to take part by the bbc. first question is on the economy from jean smith.

jean? >> would we be financially safe in an independent scotland? >> alistair darling. >> a lot of that depends on the currency we use. the bedrock of our economy is the pound sterling. it belongs to the united kingdom as a whole. the bank of england stands behind that. and behind that, the u.k. government. from my experience as chancellor of the exchequer, when i had to deal with the collapse of the bank system in 2008, the security that comes from covering a country that was large enough to deal with a collapsing bank -- it meant i could do something about it. my irish counterpart, my icelandic counterpart, they were not so lucky because they were not big enough. that is one of the reasons why i believe scotland is better and stronger together, is by being part of the united kingdom, we have that greater security.

if you look the wider economy, scotland has a lot of going for it. businesses are doing well, but i would argue that is because of the united kingdom, not despite the united kingdom. when i look at jobs for our children and grandchildren, in a pretty uncertain world, i am convinced it is in our best interest to be proud of what we do in scotland as an independent entity, but we are equally proud to share in the wider united kingdom because we get something better, greater, greater security added to that as well. >> alex salmond? >> yes, we will, jean. scotland compared to other wealthy countries, we are 14th in the organization of economic and cooperation development. alistair raised a question. let me say exactly what we want to do. i am looking for a mandate so we can share the pound in a sense of union with the rest of the united kingdom.

that is best because england and wales and northern ireland are our export market. it makes sense. i am also looking -- i know there are other options for scotland. we could have a scottish currency like sweden or norway. we could have a fixed rate. no one can stop us from using the pound sterling. it is internationally traded -- tradeable currency. we believe that the best option for scotland is to have the pound sterling, so that we pay our mortgage, we get our wages in the pound. i am speaking the best option keeps the pound sterling. [applause] >> i can tell you that we will be coming to the currency at the next part of the discussion, i

would like to focus on an issue that has become topical over the last few days, and that is oil. you mentioned ian wood, a leading figure in the north sea question, just how much black gold that is left to be the extracted. since then, other prominent figures have said that there might be more than he anticipates. alistair darling, isn't it the case that the figures from the u.k. government independent office of budget responsibility are too low? they say only 10 billion barrels. >> look at the last history of the 20 years. government projections have been too optimistic about the amount of production and the amount of revenue we get from the north sea. the office of budget responsibility, which is independent of government, has given estimates, and it has

proved to be too optimistic. i will give an example. in the last couple of years, the amount of revenue we have got from the north sea has been 5 billion pounds less than what was expected. that 5 billion pounds, that is equivalent to more we spend in schools in scotland and almost half we spend on health service. if you lost that sum in any one year, it means, for scotland, it would have to make good of that either by raising taxes elsewhere or cutting back public expenditure. >> the public attention estimates are far more than the -- do you think they're too low? >> actually, if you look at the have been too optimistic. the problem has been looking ahead and never extracted is as much north sea as people expect. it was mentioned by the government to see how much we could get extracted. ian wood is probably one of the leading experts in the north sea. he hasn't discussed the route is

something being wildly optimistic about the amount of oil they are going to get. i hope we get more oil revenues from the north sea. our problem is if you do not, and remember an independent scotland would get about 15% of its revenues from the north sea -- >> [indiscernible] i am quite sure of that. it is a smaller portion for the u.k. i'm saying we are taking on a huge amount of risk because north sea revenues are volatile uncertain, if it went wrong -- >> i will point that alistair -- in 2010 he said it was not that it had become part of the conservative party. that is what he said. [applause] >> you are misleading. >> [indiscernible]

>> you asked me not to interrupt me. please do me the -- i expect ian wood is a very respected figure in the oil industry. estimate. his he says that up to 18.5 billion barrels. in financial terms, that is 1 trillion pounds. it is a lot of billions, a lot of money. the tory party, the labour party, the only people in the world, who argue the position of substantial amounts of oil and gas is somehow a curse, as opposed to an asset. every other country in the world - [indiscernible]

[applause] >> we're approaching the wholesale value of oil. what the government should get to --x and it should go >> [indiscernible] >> the north sea has been a colossal boon to this country for 40 years. what you come away from this is once it is gone, it is gone. every barrel we take out of the north sea is one barrel less. last year you lost more revenues than you spent on the schools in scotland. >> [indiscernible] >> it is the key that your own government forecasts have been downgraded by a billion pounds for the first year of independence. this is a volatile resource which would be more important to the economy as an independent scotland.

don't you feel it's a risk? >> let's say 15% of scotland's overall economy. it is 20% of norway's overall economy. i have not seen it do norway much harm over the last 40 years. i would say the last years have been great. alistair darling's colleagues have been saying that that reserves would be running out by 2000. alistair says there is a wholesale value. let's say 20% as revenue that goes to the government. that is 200 billion pounds. six billion pounds a year. the reality is that every other country in europe would give their eye teeth to get the oil and gas. it cannot be that it is anything other than a substantial asset.

[applause] >> you're promising on the basis of the source of revenue that is a very volatile -- that would make up a very substantial part of scotland's income. i argue it is a great thing to have come to realize so much on -- rely so much on something when you publish a white paper where you put out 650 pages, there was just one year, and the estimates you made have proved to be wrong. they are much lower than you thought. tell people that somehow we can rely on this. it is gambling our future. [indiscernible] [applause] >> i want to move to our second question on the economy. it comes from kathy. >> i would like to know in an independent scotland -- i would like an answer -- what kind of currency if we do not use sterling? >> alex salmond, you said what options,t out the

what's teh definitive answer? >> i had the opportunity to lay out the options for scotland. i am thinking a mandate for the people of scotland in this referendum. i want to people have for the proposition that we should share sterling in a union. that sense of a common currency best for scotland, as for the rest of u.k. that mandate is crucial. that is why i want the people of scotland to support, because if we go into the negotiation as first minister, those are the options. i laid out in some detail earlier on. i would go as first minister to argue for the bank of scotland, best for for what's scotland, getting a mandate from the people of scotland. you're going to negotiate with that mandate, arguing for what is best for scotland, and that is keeping the pound sterling. [applause]

>> the point about the currency union is both parties have to agree to it. yes, there is the sovereign will of the scottish people, but also we have to accept the sovereign will of the rest of u.k. when you look at the views of the whole country, the hostility to the eurozone, why would you expect we do not want to join the euro? you're taking a huge risk if you assume it is going to fall into place. i think a currency union would be bad for scotland because our budget would have to be decided and approved not by us, but why what would then be a foreign country, because that is what happens in the eurozone. every country has to defend its in its budget through approval. the question that was asked, if

we do not have a currency union, what is plan b? three weeks ago when i asked what plan b was, he does not think we are going to like the answer. it is not a matter for alex salmond what the answer is. i would like to know, because i do not want to be using somebody else's currency with no central bank, rotten public services. if it is the euro, i do not want that either. as for a separate scottish currency, we saw what people get when they get new currency -- i want to know what plan b is. [applause] >> you do not have to point, alistair. [applause] i set out the options, three plan b's for the price of one.

you have got three plan b's tonight. [indiscernible] >> if people back that plan, will you as a democrat accept that is the will of the scottish people? [indiscernible] would you accept the sovereign will of the scottish people -- >> i have always said -- [applause] >> will you accept the outcome? i happen to think, and so do a lot of people in this country, that a currency union that you are proposing is the second best option for scotland. the pound sterling only works if you have an economic and political union -- >> i want to hear from members of the audience, if you would like to contribute some points. it is not the case that you have not given us your plan b. you said no to the union. you do not support that. the white paper says that if

somebody wants to argue the case for a separate scottish country, they need to win an election. it leaves us with the point of independence, if we cannot have a currency union, we will use the pound anyway. isn't that right? >> you're right to point out that we do not need permission to use the currency. the argument is they will deny us the assets of the bank of england, the financial assets of the country. the reason that would not happen is if you deny us the financial assets of the u.k., the people watching at home in england and wales tonight and northern ireland will get stuck with all the liabilities. there is no way given the enormous debts that alistair darling builds up that any u.k. chancellor is one to let scotland off with 5 billion

pounds a year of the debt payments we have offered to make as far as a sensible union. that is why it is good for scotland and for the rest of u.k. [applause] >> alex, you said a few moments ago you had a row of plan b's. >> it is the money we use. it is the value of our savings, the interest rate that we pay, the amount of money for public services. it is playing games -- [indiscernible] >> if we win the referendum -- [indiscernible] >> nobody can hear. alistair darling. just use the pound anyway. >> of course we could use a -- >> aha. aha. >> the problem is -- [applause]

using someone else's currency and you do not have a central bank. so our financial services cannot exist. [indiscernible] the second problem you have is country that use other people's countries, they have to run a surplus. you have a huge deficit, you would have to -- that would come out of -- [applause] >> alistair darling, if the rest of the united kingdom refuses a currency union, doesn't it leave itself liable for all the u.k. debt? >> [indiscernible] if your first message here is, a new currency, and we just defaulted on our debt, what do you think that would do to people who are lending us money in the future? [applause] nobody would lend us any money in the future. >> the treasury expected

liability for all u.k. debt -- you cannot default on a debt that is not yours in the first place. alistair, a few seconds ago, admitted we could use the pound anyway. the chancellor said a few months ago when he said if you walk out of u.k., you walk out of pound. they cannot stop us using the pound, the most important revelation on this debate. [applause] >> are you saying, alex salmond, that you would refuse to take a share of debt? >> we cannot be stopped from using the pound. what they can do is deny us the access and financial assets held by the bank of england. the bank of england owes 27% of u.k. debt. we are offering to pay a fair share -- >> [indiscernible]

>> obviously, if the u.k. parties take all the financial assets of the united kingdom, then we have stopped the financial liability to the united kingdom. [applause] >> i want to hear from one of the members of our audience who have not had a say so far. >> question for alistair. >> if you could make it as a point rather than a question. >> what would be the best for an independent scotland? >> we will pick that up in a moment. the gentleman in the front row in the middle with the black jacket and the blue shirt. >> the yes side seems to make a lot of promises without speaking to the other parties. as a member of the european union, we will be required to take on the euro within a matter of years. >> ok, and the lady in the back row there.

>> i think whether we use the pound or not, regardless at this point, i think we will have some kind of currency union. i think the problem is under what situations we will have, that we have a central bank, and the government work --[indiscernible] >> thank you very much. perhaps you would like to pick up on the euro question. >> can i say to the lady who was just spoken, our proposition that we should have a fair share of financing the debt would be accumulated by the united kingdom as part of a sensible currency arrangement. as far as the gentleman's point on the euro concern, we cannot be forced into the euro. sweden is part on the same basis

as scotland would be. joining that euro is voluntary. the gentleman that spoke first asked the most important question. 190 countries in the world have a currency arrangement. why would scotland be the only country in history that could not have authority to run its own affairs? [applause] >> as a former chancellor, what would your advice be? >> all fallback positions are second best for scotland. >> it is possible in two weeks' time, you know what in your view is not good for this country, what would be the best plan b option? second-best.l >> i know what i would do for -- [indiscernible] >> you are not giving one either. >> i'm clear that the pound sterling is best for scotland,

but the pound sterling is not -- >> the value of the pound sterling, the bank of england stands behind it, and u.k. government stands behind that. that is why the pound sterling is acceptable. the lady was asking about the euro. it is a case that every country that has joined the european union after 1996 has been obliged to join the euro. we have seen discussions of what happened there, but in relation to the currency union, even if you do not want -- i cannot understand why -- because the borrowing would not be decided in edinburgh, but in london. [applause] that is nonsense. [indiscernible] >> the next question is about scotland at home. >> our next section of the debate is on scotland at home. the next question comes from

linda. >> i want to know how independence would change the the nha for anyone, anyone in particular, living with lifelong conditions, chronic illnesses. >> can i say to linda that the most important thing about the national health service for people with chronic conditions and all of us is that we keep it safe in public hands and keep it properly financed. the condition is that we cannot be forced to privatize the -- for people watching in wales tonight, where the financial pressure has come under the budgets from london, people watching in england have a march taking place at the moment going through yorkshire tonight, campaigning against the

privatization of the national health service. the danger for scotland is this -- if england goes down the road of privatization and general cuts to public spending, it is not because they can force us to privatize the health service in scotland, they can't, financial pressure makes things extremely difficult for the health service in scotland. that is why to have a health service that we can all trust and rely on we need one with financial control and policy control so that we can keep the national health service as the greatest public institution in scotland. [applause] >> the health service is critically important to all of us in scotland. it is probably one of the most cherished institutions that there is in the country. that is one of the reasons that

i think being part of the united kingdom needs that strength and security that we can fund with the pressures of an aging population here in scotland. at the moment and quite rightly the total control over the nhs comes from the scottish parliament and government in terms of policy and in terms of financing. the scottish parliament can decide how much or how little it spends in the public sector and private sector. the scottish government has spent 100 million pounds of nhs money through the private sector in order to meet its targets. both governments are doing that. the point is because of the strength and security of the united kingdom, public spending is ahead, that is the way to guarantee spending on the national health service. i'm glad we are discussing it.

in the last debate, alistair mentioned the nhs once. since that debate we have been subjected to a scare campaign principally aimed at what is going on in england. [jeers from crowd] it turns out that the allegation was simply untrue and a complete fabrication. we need less of that coverage and more of a realization that we actually all want the nhs to do well, we all wanted to be there but to do that you need funding and frankly taking on risks is the real threat to the national health service. [applause] >> i will be seeking further audience contributions in a moment. why did you not say that in your point on independence? >> that has been a long-term argument for the case of

independence. i have fought the way out very carefully. i am not saying that we can be forced to privatize the health services scotland, we have operational control of the national health service. i am saying the general cutbacks in england and a move towards privatization will impose financial pressure on the national health service and if we want to see what could happen in scotland tomorrow we only need to look at wales today. the labor administration has needed to cut back in real terms because of the budgetary pressure. in scotland today, it is extraordinarily difficult. the overall scottish budget has been cut by 8%. >> the point is that the budget for the nhs in england continues to rise, so in what year do you think it will fall? >> that is exactly why i said the overall budget of scotland

has been cut by 8%. if we have decided to protect the national health service, that is spending that means the rest of the budget takes a 12% cut. if as we believe, and labor believes in england, that there is a privatization agenda in the national health service, it means less public money spent in england. no one believes that private health service increased public spending. therefore to protect the national health service we have to control it financially and in policy terms, keeping it safe in public hands. >> let's bring in alistair darling. [applause] why has the shadow health secretary labor been warning about the demise? >> because there is a big argument going on in scotland and england as to how much

private sector provision you can use as part of the overall treatment. in public spending terms, whether the nhs spends money directly or through a private contractor it doesn't make any difference, but there is an important point here throughout the labour government. we increased spending on health and increases under the present government and is due to increased in the next few years. do not believe me, there is an article in the times today that made that point, leading me to wonder why. firstly, in the last debate they mentioned the nhs once. in the constitution he published the draft constitution and they were not mentioned at all. this is all, long as part of the referendum campaign. what i really resent is using scare stories like the one in the hospital the northeast in order to make a point. [applause] [indiscernible]

>> first of all, a question from the audience, then you can both come back in. >> i would like to encourage the people here who are undecided, do not believe a word that comes out of the mouth of darling. you are a hypocrite. you started the privatization of the health service. yes, you did. >> no, we didn't. >> lost in private health companies. one last thing, if you get money -- any more invites to speak at fancy dinners for private health companies, i hope you can feel -- in your shoulder. [applause] >> ok, thank you. >> mr. darling, isn't the real threat to the scotland government the potential scrapping of the formula from several ministers?

>> the way that money is shared across the u.k., the nations of the u.k. the gentleman in the middle here. >> you are telling me that you are receiving nhs, then why are you allowing children in england to get private health care? all that does is erode the service and wages. private companies coming right out of the money from the nhs, helping no one in any shape or form. >> ok. [applause] in the back. gentleman with a blue t-shirt. >> what about the post office? will you privatize that, mr. darling?

>> let's stick with the national health service. >> i didn't privatize the post office. related to the health service, like every one of us here, most people in this country want to see it strong, thriving health service. that is my concern. i think we can best do that by being part of the u.k. that has high expenditure in the rest of the united kingdom with a rising health need in scotland and i don't want to put that at risk. when i look at independent experts who look at the budgetary position in scotland in the years after independence, they have identified a black hole over and above anything that disparity might bring, i don't want to put health services at risk, which is why i am against going down the route that would wind up with more squeeze and more pressure in a way that i don't think any of us want to see. [applause] the risk to national health service comes from the cup tax in wales, the threat of 25 billion pounds more.

the labour party in england are warning loud and clear of the express privatization to the national health service. the labour party in wales say that they have been forced to cut health expenditures because of the budgetary pressure from westminster. are you the only person who doesn't realize what is going on in england and wales? unless we establish financial control to protect their own health service. [applause] >> i recognize budgetary constraints everywhere. texas is what your own people are saying in england. >> this is scaremongering. [applause] >> let's take another question and move it along.

nick watkins is our next questioner. >> if we are based together, why why are we not based together already? [applause] >> i believe that we can do better, we can be more prosperous and have more options open to us by being proud of what we do in scotland and also having the advantage of being part of the united kingdom. let me give you an example, a few weeks ago i visited one of the most advanced medical research centers in dundee where the people are working on possible treatments for cancer. why are they there? dundee attracts a very large share of u.k. research money. these experts were saying to me that if they lose that money by losing the u.k., they will lose the center of expertise. not just important in medical care, but in terms of developing

treatments and products as one example, what you take for example as here in glasgow we know that there have been huge problems, but there are a lot of royal navy work here. it depends on the royal navy with defense jobs throughout scotland, all examples of where the jobs come from in the future. if we lose those jobs it will put a barrier between those and those businesses with a bad effect on employment prospects. things are difficult just now for obvious reasons, i believe we would be making a huge mistake to take on risks we don't need and giving opportunities for children in the generations to come. [applause] >> can i say, as first minister

i have been working all week with the shops to try to procure the appointments there and i am absolutely delighted that we have moved into a position tonight with a prepared bidder at every opportunity and every belief that we will be able to sustain that employment. that is the sort of action we are able to take now with the scottish parliament that we could not take before. as far as other job threats are concerned, the gentleman's question hit the nail on the head. you see the threats with shipbuilding jobs. i don't accept that. i think the future for ship holding jobs, for the workers and shop stewards, as they said last week, by diversifying our skills into the range of merchant vessels, we produced 100 vessels over the last year. shipbuilding employment has gone from tens of thousands to 3000 under the united kingdom. [indiscernible]

why do we not see it now? as opposed to face the reality in terms of child poverty and the loss of industrial jobs? westminster stands indicted. >> let me try to follow. [applause] >> there are many issues that we could discuss, we are quite pressed for time. let me pick up on one. the welfare issue that you mentioned, the scottish government estimated that as a result of disability, being replaced with a personal independence payment in the coming years more than 100,000 disabled scots will lose money. do you support that reform? >> we have as a country an obligation to help people who need support, but you need the means to do it.

what concerns me, if you end up in a situation where you cut off opportunities to pay for these things, it will be less likely that you can provide the level of support needed in the future. that is why i think this approach is absolutely wrong. we know people with disabilities and an aging population that will require more medical care. why take that burden on 5 million people when it can be pooled and shared? it makes no sense whatsoever. [applause] isn't it more sustainable on a system that draws on taxes from the whole of the united kingdom rather than just those in scotland? >> in your question you gave the answer, there are indeed 100,000 scots falling victim to the welfare reforms.

alistair darling did not condemn as he went on in his answer the way i believe that the people with disability are being treated. yes, we have a difficult, troubled economic time, but the mark of concern is that when you are in difficult economic times you don't take it out on the disabled and families with children, enforcing a bedroom tax, the most ludicrous tax of all time. >> isn't that the point? [applause] when times are tough, when cash is short, we all have to make the difficult choices. >> we made the choice in the scottish parliament. the westminster government introduced to the bedroom tax. we have taken out resources from the parliament, despite the fact that we don't control social to compensate people from the ridiculous argument of a box bedroom tax for your

equipment and suddenly you will lose housing benefits. we have to take and 50 million pounds to compensate and make sure that ordinary scots did not suffer. controlling the welfare without introducing the bedroom tax in the first place. [applause] >> the bedroom tax is thoroughly bad in every respect and needs to be repealed. what's more, we have said that if we were elected next year it would appeal to the general election. >> i am a labour politician. [indiscernible] [applause] >> we are moving onto the next section of this evening's debate. both will have the opportunity to cross-examine one another, though they have been doing a fair bit of that so far. they will have a chance to

conduct cross examinations and i will step in if they get too heated. mr. darling has selected to go first. >> i want to go back to currency. [groans from crowd] in the last debate i read in the newspaper that you wanted a better chance to explain your plan b. off you go and tell me. >> [indiscernible] [applause] >> let me try to guess. we think that having the currency arrangement with scotland and england sharing the pound is best for the united and kingdom, for the reasons i said.

i also thought that the other options, the three plan b's -- >> which one? >> the outline to the flexible currency like in sweden and norway affecting the exchange rate, like hong kong has with the dollar. you admitted it earlier on in the debate. we cannot be stopped from using the pound anyway. [applause] >> three plan b's. >> the reason i am raising it again is because the currency is the foundation of our economy and all that we have to save the value from money and interest rates. i want you to contemplate the impossible. ask yourself your role. what is your plan b? b. must have your plan >> even your insults trade on the lack of the day. what are the options? i will explain them to you in great detail and see why you are so adamant with the mandate for the people here. the will of the scottish people

to have a commonsense currency. will you support that option? >> it is a rotten option. it is bad for scotland. >> suppose you did not get a currency union. it is everybody's money. are we going to have our own currency or wind up like panama? one of your top advisers said we might have a panamanian solutions. i don't want to be like panama for six minutes. is that your solution? >> there are 190 countries in the world. we have a range of options. where you described all of the currency options as wrong? i am seeking a clear mandate from the sovereign will of the scottish people. you have been asked a number of

times, i will accept the result. will you campaign -- [indiscernible] [applause] >> i will accept the results. the day after tomorrow people want to know what will happen to the money they've got. what currency will a have without a currency union? just answer the question. >> you admitted it in the program. we cannot be stopped from using the pound. i think that there will be a currency union because if you go down the road of denying us access to the bank of england, you end up stuck with the debt. incidentally you manage to consume 60%. this?you be prepared to support

>> questions from alistair darling. >> is there a referendum in that respect? >> let me just ask you about another plan b. all revenues, talking about the fact that they were 5 billion pounds less than expected last year, more than we spent on the school's budget. in the u.k. that could be dealt with. if you are an independent country, how would you make up the gap? >> over 25 years they advised acceptance and what they wrote last week was that there was no black hole in the scottish government's estimate. that they are missing a mountain of that. >> pointed out. you forecast that revenues would

be 6 billion in 2011. in fact turned out to be $11 billion. >> that was in part to develop. >> that is when you have revenues that help us to decrease. >> if you have lost 6 billion pounds of revenues because production goes down? how do you wake up to the business? >> production is going up. that's why they have invested 30 billion pounds. >> that comes into the north sea. >> the question from sitting down is that the investment is offset against revenues to increase production. we know the increase is at 80%.

>> we know that or -- north sea oil production is going up because of the subsidy going into decommissioning. i am asking you, in an independent scotland if you lost revenues on the equivalent that we spend on schools, and just one year how would you make up the difference? >> that is why removed forward with stabilization. >> that is the policy i took forward. >> everybody knows that. >> for 23 years scotland has spent more. >> for the last couple of years? >> 8 billion pounds better off as an independent country. >> i know your figures.

>> that is a lot of money. >> can you allow me this final minute to get another question? will you hit with a 6 billion pound deficit identified by the international institute of fiscal studies that you quote with approval in your paper? they say that they will have to find 6 billion pounds more. >> each one of those studies says it would be a prosperous economy in scotland. >> listen to me. >> you had a deficit of 150 billion pounds. >> this from the man who undermines the entire economy.

>> he can't answer basic questions. >> that is the end of the time. [applause] >> alex hammond, you now have eight minutes to cross examine alistair darling. >> how many children in scotland are estimated to move into poverty by 2020 given the u.k. governments spending cuts? >> too many. the time i was in government you could count -- >> how many? >> it depends on the government policies. >> a strong and secure economy is needed. >> there are too many children. >> 100,000 children in scotland moving into poverty. is that up price -- is that a

price worth paying for the westminster government? the labour party -- they said that they will continue with labour -- the labour policies area, is that a price worth paying? >> as a society i said we had it an obligation to get the children out of policy. stop interrupting. you as a government have cut one billion pounds from the anti-poverty program. most of whom only have one way out of poverty. you as a government have cut one >> 100,000 people with a

and so, why are you standing here defending this success? disability, these are the people suffering the westminster government.

they can start with the resources cutting back on the money from the scottish government. >> the amount of money, the amount of money being spent on the health service has increased. [shouts from the crowd] >> you did decide at the moment how much to spend. don't start blaming other people for it. >> it came from the union. >> i know the service workers. everybody working in the health service wants to see it properly funded. it is for you to decide. >> the cutbacks from westminster? >> you have made the point time and time again. >> it is for you to decide. >> they don't play these games.

>> it is a national pub service. >> do your colleagues estimate they should try the system? >> i don't think that you choose between defending the country in the national health service? >> i don't believe it. >> do we choose to believe it? >> i am telling you, there were 13 years i was in government. spending more money in the future. >> is that a sensible allegation? -- allocation?

>> i understand that many people think trident is wrong. [applause] >> answer the question. >> i think we have an obligation to defend this country. >> name three job creating powers. >> first of all, devolving the work program. devolving further. >> what would that be first? >> secondly, it would be making sure that we guaranteed the unemployed getting back into work. >> i have told you that there is a program for devolving the work into the program. >> part of the united kingdom.

>> is this the universe? >> a guarantee for the scottish parliament if it they win the day? >> the scottish parliament has full powers over health and education. we have more powers related to welfare. public service creates jobs. just part of the united kingdom. >> what powers are they transferring to the scottish parliament in order to create more jobs -- jobs? >> i told you.

staying part of the united kingdom is the best way of guaranteeing jobs. >> you promised these additions. a powerhouse parliament. >> it is simple. all you have got to offer is what is great for starbucks. and amazon. >> what army? >> part of the united kingdom. >> we won't get there on her own. >> 100,000 children faced with disabilities.

they are going to spend $4 billion a year on trident, and he cannot name the powers of the parliament. [applause] >> telling me the money we will be using. how can you guarantee me anything in public service and you cannot tell me what you are using? >> that is the end of our cross examination section. thanks to both of you for that. one of the striking things about this campaign is how many people have become actively engaged in the discussion about the future of holland. the turnout turned out to be 80% and higher. town halls and living rooms are alive with the noise of this great debate. >> everyone should be voting. it is an important decision to make. >> it is important that everyone should exercise their vote.

this is a one-time in a lifetime opportunity. >> looking at the system, what we need is how we understand how this country works and what i want. >> this could be a great moment in history in scotland. o'er the biggest downfall. >> and employment advisor. >> i work for the scottish national heritage. >> to me the referendum should be an opportunity for the country to live in and the society we want to live in, impacting employment. >> making sure that our heritage continues. >> get your opinions across.

>> i am, in my country, entailing what will happen to us in the future. >> we will be the ones trying to obtain mortgages. setting careers. starting up families. >> it will be historic. >> the constituents get it right. >> in democracy it is wonderful that everyone in scotland gets a choice to choose which way it goes. >> there are two sections still to come. we will look at what happened after the referendum.

first we will look at the place of scotland in the world. this comes from brian connolly. >> what is going to happen to the jobs? to the people? after it is scrapped? >> alex hammond. p> the policy of the s&p -- sn will be to remove trident from scotland. there are a number of reports over the years that have indicated as generating more jobs and wasting billions they can never be used. we have identified it as the function of the scottish defense forces.

a policy that removes nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction because they are a phenomenal waste of money as well as being totally, morally wrong and the policy that gives our undertakings and obligations to a local community. [applause] >> in three years time there will be over 8000 jobs in fast lane. not just in relation to trident, but because it is to become the uk's center for the non-trident submarine fleet. if it were to go it is certain the rest of the summary world would go with it.

we could not well afford to lose another 8000 jobs. remember, there are others associated with that. never mind the costs, i understand why people might feel very strongly against those missiles. it won't reduce the amount of nuclear missiles and i think it is fanciful to suggest that a much smaller scottish defense force will require 8000 jobs. i just think it is the wrong thing to do in terms of military terms and jobs. i will throw this out in a moment, the question is about jobs. >> you talk about a 10 year transition to an independent scotland. how long until there were as many people as you have in the

united kingdom? >> obviously, we have given a 5.5 year timescale. building up conventional scottish defense forces, why not be the headquarters of the scottish defense force? >> the employment is equivalent to what was proposed. >> in the terms of onshore jobs it will be substantial as well. >> we currently have no ships to defend royal installations. >> how long would it take? and equally it is 5.5 years.

which is the timetable for the removal of trident nuclear submarines. people might make a choice. i think a very sensible choice. it would be sensible not to proceed with the next generation of submarines. not to spend 100 billion pounds. over the next 40 years on this. >> that is also a choice the people of england can make. >> what is your perspective? >> saving money on 375 million pounds, leaving the people without jobs and you are not assured that they will be

replaced? >> not at all. >> the gentleman there? >> given the remove and -- removal of trident, surely that would go some way to replacing the jobs that were lost. [applause] >> a respected think tank has said it is possible to move it but it would take until 2028. that is eight years after your proposed timetable. >> they argued that to move it the weapons establishment would take longer. they said that they could move

it in the timescale. it is a reasonable timescale. >> to stay longer? >> i think that scotland is a country of five point two 5 million people. it is ludicrous to suggest that we should harbor the largest concentration of weapons of mass destruction. [applause] it is equally ludicrous to argue that this will harbor a weapons system in the first place to generate more jobs than the new -- then nuclear jobs ever could. >> we would miss the fact that we're going to waste our share

of 100 billion pounds. on nuclearte things weapons. >> i understand, people believe we should have no part in nuclear weapons, but i can understand the part that says joined nato, a nuclear alliance. it does not make any sense. yes, the experts have said that it could take until 2008 to move it. as i was thinking earlier, there are 8000 jobs at stake here. there are other submarines. and on top of that there is also the risk to the royal naval work on the client. i for 1 am not prepared to

accept this. bolstering the rest of the united kingdom to unilaterally disarm itself. >> if they had to move the missiles, that is what would happen. the greater concern is the disruption that takes place and the uncertainty that takes place in the scottish defense force. they are in fact turn -- in fact talking about spending that you have offered to spend 10 times over.

you can't keep spending money that you haven't actually got. [applause] >> it is not at all like that. as the expenditure in scotland, to compare it to a major natural resource like oil and gas, there were many points, alastair. [applause] how on earth can you say that 50% of your tax revenue is a bonus? >> i think the rest of us realize that what you are doing is you are trying to spend money over and over again, but you can't do it. >> they said they are not planning in that regard. do you believe that? >> yes. it is to find out what the will of the scottish are. no if's or but's or going back.

that is why the decision is so a -- irrevocable. and that is why we have to make this with eyes wide ope. the reason they are not planning if there is no mandate. >> with the u.k. cap it, they said, yes, it was disgraceful that the u.k. government had not made any planning. between the u.k. government and the scottish government. isn't it reasonable that we should have plans for the u.k. government, because of the sovereign will of the scottish people?

[applause] though -- iaying went to get back to my other question. saying you are prepared to negotiate on that point? 5.5 years is a very reasonable timescale as we have done in the white paper. our objective is to rid scotland of nuclear weapons. and notmember of nato be a nuclear country. there was the prime minister of denmark, a nonnuclear country. the next secretary-general was the prime minister of norway, another nonnuclear country. why is it not all right for us but all right for denmark and norway?

>> after the 18th, after the referendum vote. our next question is submitted by e-mail. it comes from greg. has says this, in his view, been a very divisive campaign, not just for politicians but for the scottish population generally. the yes or know how no voters will react. someone asked me six months ago, has this been divisive, and will it be difficult afterwards, and i said, no, not at all, because after an election, people have their differences, and that is it. both sides are passionate about what they believe in. they are arguing it with vigor. i do think that it is important that whatever the result, both sides have to accept it.

we will have to accept it. workple that people will together to build a better and stronger scotland. equally, if i lose, and he wins, i have to accept that that is it. it is your revocable. we are not going back. but this is not just for politicians. whatis for all of us after has been the longest election campaign. i have every.est street and we have to remember, the next morning, we have to go on with making a difference for things that matter to scotland. issues of social justice. we all need to work very closely together, and i hope we will do that. [applause] >> i will say that i agree with much that he was just saying. i don't agree about the campaign. i think this has been the most

extraordinary, energizing campaign in scottish history. it are people who are going to vote who have never thought about voting for political parties. a poll of 80%, a marvelous engagement. this is a hugely exciting time for scotland. but i think he has a good point. in the aftermath, there is an obligation to bring scotland together. we're going to have to bring scotland together. if it is a yes vote, then i will betweenhe obligation the referendum and independence, not just involving the scottish national party, but all of the parttalents of scotland as of scotland's negotiating team to get the best possible settlement for scotland in the negotiations. if he is available, i would be happy to invite him to join that negotiating team, because once , a referendum is over

unified scotland is what we need. [applause] >> ok, i will let you come back to that in a moment, but i want to hear some final thoughts. what about after the vote. yes, in the front row. >> you mentioned about a turnout of about 80%. how can you make sure that they stay engaged in politics regardless of the outcome? a no vote,vent of can mr. darling tell us about the meaning for scotland? >> ok, and the gentleman in the middle. a lot ofk so far that the points have been focusing on the risks and not on the benefits of staying in the union. there is no