one, $1.6 million. the average senate winner spent in excess of $10 million. what does that tell you? guest: things are getting more expensive. that is just part of the issue. money, itook outside could be closer to $10 million for the house race. , tv you count outside money time is expensive. it is just competition. there are a lot more people trying to get more us is out there. host: let's talk about the super pac's and outside money. this is a new component. flooded the market with more people trying to get a message out. it brings in these new groups that are interested in particular niche issues.

we have billionaires that are invested in these races that are interested in particular issues. up. drives the market value it makes it more expensive for campaigns to buy as well. host: where does the money come from? guest: a very small percentage of the population will contribute to a campaign. when we look at the ratio of actual voter turnout, you are looking at maybe a fraction of people who will contribute $10 to a race. activists,arty people who have a vested interest. that is where the bulk of the money cams from. the outside groups can come from anywhere and we don't know where that is. host: this is a striking comparison.

in 1976 when we had matching funds and the fcc was fully in place, jimmy carter and gerald ford each accepted $20 million in federal dollars. in 2012, barack obama admit romney each raised in excess of $1 billion. host: that is true. senate and true of governor's races across the country. there are governors races that will spend $100 million in one state. votersnds on how many and media markets there are in your state. the size of your state and how many people are interested in your race. there are some outside groups that are interested in specific areas. there has to be a republican

group that comes in to counter that. there are some anti-gun billionaires that are out there to spend a lot of money. they have unlimited funds. they have billions and billions of dollars to spend. that creates competition and a demand for someone to counter them. you will see races get worse. host: we are 71 days until he midterm elections. we are focusing on every aspect of a campaign. theremove into the fall, will be a place for those debates and you can check the schedule information on our website. let's go back to the issue of outside money. how will 2014 be different than 2012? guest: it will be bigger. there will be more plain -- evil playing.

the environmental groups are interested along the keystone highpoint. you have a big governors race in iowa. you have a senate race down that area as well. volatile areas. outside groups are going to spend a lot of money. the building down the street from you guys controls a lot of money and influence. dollar tol pay top get influence. host: in 2009, michael bloomberg spent his own fortune. meg whitman was running for governor of california, she spent 140 million dollars of her own money. uc cell funding candidates at all levels. self fundinge candidates at all levels. cell funding candidates still has to do some fundraising.

they have to organize events. it helps to have a few million to help you out. might encourage some outside groups not to come in knowing that you have the ability to compete with them. it doesn't mean that they don't fund raise. topic is money and politics. this is a weeklong series on "washington journal." frederick is calling from indianapolis. caller: i would like to comment. if it surprises me how apathetic millennium will's are -- millennium larp. -- millennial's are. it is a shame that republicans and democrats are just at war

constantly. nothing will get done. it is all about raising money. information voter is andected to the wisecracks people like yourselves that have to generate a secret message to get them out to vote. .t is just money grabbing the system is totally broken. we have to figure out some way to fix it. host: thank you for the call and observation. can voters still trump the power of money and influence? guest: the fund raising is just part of it. things thatay for voters will be a part of. voters can work on a campaign. grassroots aspects are a big

part of the campaign. thousands of volunteers are important. they make calls and knock on doors. they can volunteer in a variety of different ways. it is important to realize that candidates raise money in small dollar increments. the voter is still a big part of the fundraising for a candidate. it is a big part in voluntary. what is on messaging? generale do some consulting and polling.

we work for committees. we do every aspect of the campaign. we raise strategy. we work with them on their theyng to make sure that know what the people in their district or state are feeling. we come up with the right message for tv advertising. what does your group do? messages take our directly to a targeted voter for a particular reason. whether it is through mail or online, we want to know who a swing voter is and take a message to that voter that they

want to hear. into numbers.e we delve into small communities and try to find individuals that need persuasion. this micro-targeting is very interesting. if you are a dish network it can determine the campaign ad that you see that night. guest: this is fascinating technology. this is where tv is headed. , they are losing money to the internet guys. tv wants to get into that game. your behavioral patterns on what you watch on tv will build a model. this is not just political. ford and coca-cola are interested in this. personaldeliver a commercial to you, that is fascinating technology. what you want to see or

what they want you to see. host: let me bring this back to money, as the price any different? guest: it is still expensive. it does not mean you are not going to do your tv advertising that is aimed at your base in your swing votes. you will have the ability to target a more specific audience. this is the kind of stuff that you have been doing in the mail for decades. now we can do it online. we are getting a lot of tweets on this. guest: u.s. citizens only is my merrily the rule now anyway. i do a lot of work in virginia.

they have the same thing. overave to report anything $100, but you can take unlimited money. it makes the candidate more responsible. corporations can give. super pac's can give. the candidate has to respond if there is an attack on one of those donors. host: gladys is on the line. caller: hello. i may be a little naïve. i want to know where all of these billions of dollars come from. i am trying to say this right. for mitt to vote wheny or president obama,

they talk about ads or things on tv, i watch the local news. , the my information newspapers are all biased and hope fully your local news isn't. when you have somebody come on a show like meet the press or something like that, then i am listening. guest: the candidates do need money to hire the people that you are watching on your local news. that is important. i want people to think that candidates are encouraged to raise that much money. because it is so expensive and a major portion of the budget, that does not mean that other parts of the campaign don't

matter. the communications team that talks to your local news station or gives a reporter information, those staffs are growing all the time. differenttotally media than it was a few years ago. between twitter and everything newspapers don't operate all the time. you can see communications staffs for campaigns growing. host: we will focus on how campaigns deal with crisis management and polling. tomorrow we will turn our attention to political messages and campaign ads. david, good morning. turn the volume down on your set.

caller: hang on. i would just like to comment on the campaigns and the ads. i realize they have to get their message out there in my only problem is all the negatives, the slam campaigns. they are ridiculous. it would be much more respectable if the elected officials would just put his ideals out and his policies. their voters could take a cast aible -- responsible ballot. it is just ridiculous. also, as far as resident obama goes, he is constantly on the

fundraising trail. that is the main focus of his administration. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: thank you for the call. i am guilty of creating negative ads. they are important to explain to voters what someone's record is. i think what you will see more lotmore are people having a more positive ads in their races. i think voters are becoming more cynical. i think they are becoming more pessimistic. a lot of candidates are realizing that. they are changing their advertising and modifying the message. host: let me get your response to what barack obama told current in 2008 when she sat

down with all the presidential candidates and asked senator obama about money in politics. we will get that in just a moment. let's go to this tweet. the supreme court does disagree with that. they do believe that money is speech. there are regulations on money. there are contribution limits. costsressional race the $1 million, the maximum that $2600.y people give is airtime costs money. it costs money to do printing. things cost money. these things all cost money. they have been raising the price of campaigns. as technology has developed and

allows us to find and target individuals that need to be spoken to, the price has gone up. it is important. in the end, the campaign is about contrast. they want to represent you. they want to make a difference. they have to outline to you why they are different than the other person. they have to tell you why they are a better choice. they have to advertise just like coca-cola or mercedes-benz. they have to explain why they are different. this is barack courtesy of cbs news. i think you start to get a sense of the less attractive , particularlyning fundraising. asking a stranger for money. that is the least attractive

aspect of it. this is the thing i would like to change the most. i have to spend quite a bit of time going to fund risers -- -- fundraisersng and eating chicken dinners. i would rather steady policy ideas. ups andw about the downs and what you have to do. host: that was from 2008. guest: candidates hate fundraising. i think that is the one thing they really don't like it. they will lie to you and tell you that they do. there is not a single candidate that really loves fundraising. this is what the breakdown is. there are a lot of chicken dinners and phone calls. the average to donation being around $200. they only have some he hours in

a day to make calls and make money. almost. media market is $500 a gross rating points. this is the way the math works. that means they have to have the blood in the campaign, which is the money. they have to be able to fund these things. the president is right. anybody who has run for a high-level office has spent days locked in a room raising money. spending house candidates one in 93% of the races and in the senate 83%. good morning. caller: good morning. my issue is regardless of how much money you spent on a campaign, it doesn't change the views that you might have.

exposure that people may get from hearing your message over and over again. that is what a strategist might use. research andr own you can go back to win some of these candidates were local leaders and moved up through the ranks, you will know where they stand on certain issues. fellowi love that a person from georgia would make that comment. i would love it if every voter did research. takee have families to care of. it going online and doing the research is tough.

it is hard. this is what makes the world of political advertising exist. there is a void in the market and that is where we come in. most families in november have calendarmarked on the and that is thanksgiving. we need engagement on all levels. when barack obama spent $1 billion thomas we had some of the highest turnout in the nation as a whole. it is the ability to draw a contrast between president obama and mitt romney. these are very important distinguished -- distinctions that need to be made. i am glad that georgia color had the wherewithal to do the due diligence. we are expected to exceed

that amount in 2014. patty is joining us from virginia. caller: good morning. i am calling as a former candidate twice in virginia. i have a very personal view of what these people do. i don't want to disrespect them. they are trying to wake up voters. to it as theer political industrial complex. the way that my media people dealt with me was to try and the most inflammatory thing. that is warping the reality. i had a very conservative

opponent. all i wanted to do was make my case that i was a moderate and he was altra conservative. let's be clear on how we would vote. that theye points have already made is most voters don't pay attention. they have to be woken up. billions of dollars are raised so that these people can try to wake them up. they have to wake them up with messages that are not constructive. it is actually the responsibility of the american found them to be very disappointing. day calling hours a strangers to ask for money. was knockingay i on doors and getting to know my

constituents. if i was ever to run again, i would only accept money from people that could vote for me. contemplating writing a piece of legislation that would put that in front of the congress. if you could only contribute to ,eople that you voted for things would be a lot more fair. i had massive amounts of outside money against me.

they feel like they have a tiny bit of influence on what happened. did me $10. you know? -- it is a just shame. question.k cash would you run for office again? >> i work with the federal government and cannot do anything right now. host: ok. i used to dread going to an undisclosed location to call people.

most to believe not answer. leave them a message and, they do not call back and you end up spending your time leaving messages for people who never called back, instead of getting to know your constituents. host: let's get your reaction. it is great. the store from her is like a lot of former members. finish an election and then have to go back and start making calls again. they have an election every two years. but it's the same way for a lot of people. but at the end of the day, i think they run for a lot of people. and i think if you try try hard

enough, and can do it, it is importance once you get there. host: and the national journal obtained that members spend an average of about four hours a day campaigning. caller: good morning. i'm very disappointed in the democrats and i will not vote for anybody. i live in a mobile home where -- everybody is not going to vote for nobody because we work for our living, government automatic deduct from our paycheck, our social. we try to be good citizens, but we are dead. government forgot us.

yes, we do have our medicare to care for us being sick and stuff like that, but why ask us for their vote if they don't care for us. guest: i'm sorry that you're disengaged and feel like you're left out. this is why it's important that they reach out to a voter like you and talk about your concerns. in the end, as patty said, she went door to door. and to me, that's the counter to money. there's money and time in campaigns and in the middle, you can put in some sweat equity. this is an example where i hope democrats will reach out to you to talk to you about medicare,

social security, issues facing seniors. unfortunately, finding you and getti getting to you costs money. and it's not likely that voters like you will be at ferverent -- say i want to be engaged and have input and see what they say. we are looking at fundraising in american politics. caller: thank you for taking my call. from what i understand, people say they get information from the news.

but the last couple of elections, they have not had news in their -- that covers both parties exactly. i know that even with -- when bush jr. was running, they could tell how many -- they told how many beers he had at college, but when obama was running, you never heard a thing negative about obama. because the news now is controlled. but like the woman that was on there running for an office, i know exactly what she's saying because when they call me up to donate towards the party, the platform, i say i'm not giving

my money unless -- to anyone except that i know who is running. guest: yeah, i mean, i come from a communications background. so i got started in republican politics being a press secretary. at lot of people say that is true. it trains us better and forces us to kind of tell reporters both sides of the story. i think it is important to watch the news. i think it is important to watch the least biased news of course. and use both facts to use an opinion. however, there are still a lot of people who watch the news who are still not persuaded one way or the other and we news television, mail, digital, everything else to try to get to that undecided voter who may be

reading the news but still may need a little push. and hopefully our advertising will get them there. >> and we'll delving behind that strategy. host: okay. jim. caller: thank you very much. i want to follow up on a statement on the lady that ran for office. she made a comment who acted very strongly about and the panelists didn't really address it after she went off the air. and that was the fact --

host: that is the issue of freedom of speech which the supreme court put forth. caller: shouldn't i have the right to vote for that person? if elected representatives are

supposed to represent me and my views and my district, then i think those are the only individuals that should be able to contribute money to them. host: so you're saying if you're not in the district or the state, you should be able to give to the candidate? caller: that's correct. host: thanks for the call. caller: guest: there's only about 70,000 that live in that district and to run to try to get the small percentage of those people that live there to donate to your campaign would be very, very hard. most voters wouldn't have the opportunity to meet her. but i will say this: i mean, i grew up in athens, georgia where i had republican congressman and two republican u.s. senators. i had the ability to donate to other democrats who i felt

shared my ideals. so i think that an individual should be able to donate to a candidate outside. for example, my mother, she lived in ohio. if she wanted to donate to me, i would be able to accept that donation. again, we're looking and voters are looking for people that share their ideology with. they want to make it friendly to whatever they do and they're trying to elect people that share their ideology. whether it's support unions, fair trade, those types of agreement. that's why those outside influences come into a different state. >> tomorrow we'll look at ad making and wednesday, voter targeting. bob is joining us from tampa, florida. good morning. caller: good morning.

i would like to ask two questions. one question is do both of these people depend on contributions, depend on money from big organizations for their livelihood? host: bob, stay on the line and we'll follow up with your second point. guest: i personally don't -- i work for a firm of republican candidates and a couple of committees are our clients. host: joe. guest: several groups do outside work with us. in the past, --

guest: first off, in virginia, if you donate, you get to write some of that off on your taxes. as the democrats disagree with the supreme court rule that corporations are people, we'll get into this later, but if you do participate, you receive a tax break for that. that is a fair assessment. and when you file your taxes, you can contribute to the presidential campaign fund though i believe days of that are coming to an end. but, i fully support states and hopefully someday the federal

government giving a tax break to someone who wants to spread their voice. host: carol says "i think most voters don't realize how important their vote is." they would quote if they knew their vote can be a tie breaker in my swing votes. it's the state-by-state total that determines the presidency. i'd like to think why people think off-year votering is unimportant when their votes really do count. caller: we had a couple of citizens who were unhappy with the economy and, therefore, just didn't vote. campaigns have noticeded that.

they -- noticed that. they have been using language very similar to that email saying in your district we lost this race by single or double-digit numbers and your vote is important to us. using mail, we're able to engage some of those voters who unfortunately, because of the economy, the state of the country in the past election have not voted. host: and joe says who did the winning politicians literally represent? there is absolutely a quid pro quo for the amount of money involved. guest: that's a bold statement to make right now. quid pro quo is on the far side of this. most investors are investing in

a candidate because they share the same beliefs. it's important for everyone to remember, the voters put them there. donors just help them talk to those voters. that gets lost. i'm using that money to talk to voters because i want to make a difference. my first loss in my business, we called him landslide jim. he one by one vote. he never took a vote for granted. he received donations from organizations in the state of virginia. so it's important that voters remember that their vote is what happened puts the person there and they should never take that for granted. host: and jim is who? guest: jim scott.

he's now retired host: and now a look at how much money has been spent since 1993 to now. caller: good morning. i wonder how many people are like i am. i don't watch commercials for politicians. i don't have a computer. i don't answer the door if i don't recognize the person. and i don't answer the phone if i don't recognize who's on there. thank you. hos guest: you are in my realm. you are where i operate because you're the toughest voter to get. in general, the one voter that is going to win this race for you is the voter that's running away from you. they don't want to talk about you. they don't care about you.

they want to live their life and don't want you involved but they know it's their civic duty to vote so they do. so we will look for you. my specialtity which is mail, eventually, you're going to have to check your mailbox. so my hope is in the five seconds between your front door and your trash can, i can get a message to you from my candidate. host: who have are bundlers? guest: they're donors who know other donors. sometimes they go to a -- who is one of their recurring voters. they will say let me introduce you to my friends who would like to donate to you.

host: lets go to jules in atlanta, georgia. one more time for jules in atlanta. we're going to have to go on. cathy in new castle, delaware. caller: i had a quick question. i've been wondering. i'm really disappointed in the elections which i think is part of the problem and i was just wondering if there was a way that we could put in none of the above like in the movie brewster's millions. guest: i love that movie. but that's all the more reason for you to engage at whatever

level you are because we can't do that. here's the beauty, a lot of these individuals on capital hill are elected by a primary process. so get involveded in the primary process. show your influence that way. look at eric cantor, he's feeling the bruises from that hit and that was a primary. host: incumbents pass all campaign laws so why would they pass any law disadvantaging themselves. guest: the current -- a lot of them did not pass their laws. but i think it was probably at the time the way that they thought was the fairest way of doing this. unfortunately, with time, we've seen as early as two cycles away, things are changing because those laws were passed and different people were trying

to get through the donation process and get their message out in a different way. trying to be creative. that's why we came up with things like super pacs and all these different outside organizations came to be. all of these things actually were created because of campaign financing. host: our topic is money and politics and we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. jim is joining us from hamilton, virginia. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to talk about something slightly different. when i was growing up, i was told to vote in the primaries because you miss half the election if you don't.

as a result, i changed affiliations affiliation more than once so i can vote in a primary. but things are changing because now you can vote in a primary even if there's a different party. i was wondering what your guests thought about that. it seems dishonest to me. host: thank you. we certainly saw that in mississippi. guest: in mississippi, was a classic example of where ted cochran reached out to african american communities and tried to get them engaged in the party. in a state like mississippi, you have a primary process and a runoff process and in the only disqualification in the runoff process is that you did not vote in the other party's regular

primary. so when you look at the fight going on down there, that's locked up, he's fine, but he engaged voters he knew were eligible to vote in that runoff. and here's a good example of how when you engage a community, you can get them active even if they're not in their party. their voice can be heard in that primary process. all elections should be open. it's dishonest to say i'm a member of that party but in the end, that individual is going to represent you in the u.s. congress or senate. your voice should be heard, so you should participate in that's the case. host: in the north carolina

senate race. c-span, of course, will be why you are place for all of these debates. you can check out our scheduling information at cspan.org. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook so you can follow the entire process online. barbara from new york city. caller: good morning. i would like to know from the

viewers of c-span, how many representatives have held town hall meetings. they've been on vacation for five years. i called my representative's office and asked when a town hall meeting was going to be and i was told there were no meetings scheduled. yet, i got an email to go to a fund raising event. all i see is people -- considering all the time off they have the rest of the year, i don't think they should be paid for the five weeks they've been off. i just want to add my support to the idea of people only being able to donate who live in the district and can vote for a representative. i heard them say maybe there would only be 70,000 people in a district. so what. i mean, that limits both candidates or however many

candidates to the 70,000 people in that district. senators would be limited in the states that were donating and everybody in the country could donate to the president. guest: that's a good point. imagine if you're running for dog catcher or something even smaller than that. the problem isn't that i'm competing against my opponent necessarily. but it's competing against coca-cola. your time and attention as a voter is divided in numerous way. when you open up the paper, there's advertisements all over the page and i'm still competing with those. that is important to take note. it's not just the opponent you're competing against. it's every other advertiser out there which is why money is so important to break through that clutter. host: let's go to may in canton, ohio. caller: good morning. i just wanted to ask both

candidates a question. why should i support either party when i have no interest on who the candidate is going to be. i give an example. in ohio, john casik is running for governor. he complains about ed fitzgerald not having a driver's license. i don't even know if he's running. the same with the democrats and hillary clinton. nobody is going to run but her and we're supposed to support you? i just want to know why. guest: there was a primary process in pennsylvania. the democratic governor's race had -- i'm sorry, the ohio governor's race had a lot of candidates on there. but i think this just leads to more of the importance of

volunteers, engagement. encourage some of your friends to run who you think could make it to the ballot. help someone else get involved in the primary process because that helps you who is your nominee. host: what one thing would you leave our viewers and listeners with? guest: i think it is to remember that you are still a process. you are still part of that process. do not think that the big money groups are really the only thing that the candidate is thinking about. they want to reach you in the mail, email, they will call you, and there is a local office that you can attend and your $5, $10 and ultimately your vote counts. but always remember but that small donation and that average voter still means a whole lot to the candidates. guest: i get to be on the bad side of supporting politicians, i guess. in the end, this is a process that costs money.

we are competing against every other advertiser out there for your attention. and if there's anything that can make you feel good, please just know that my whole entire job is to find you and talk to you about what you want to talk about. sometimes that's hard and sometimes that is expensive. but you have three ways you can engage. obviously you can donate to your local candidates. the ones that you support and the ideals you believe in. you can volunteer and volunteering is sometimes worth its weight in gold because it's so hard sometimes to find people who can take off of work especially during the day and

a look at how -- our guests are brian donohue. washington journal is live every morning at 70 -- 7 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> next, the bbc debate on the scottish independence referendum. agencies manage crises. and the affordable care act implementation in six states. coming up on tuesday, discussion on the future of the european union, the economy, and defense policy. we will be live from the wilson

center at 3:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this weekend, special programming on the c-span networks. friday night, native american history. on saturday, a debate on scottish independence. q&a."y, " tv."n cspan3, "book with formerh" congressman ron paul. on the asteroid threat. nasa documentary moon the apollo 11

landing. and lyndon johnson's nomination acceptance speech from the 1964 democratic convention. a look at election laws and the president of bush v gore. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. #c123 or email us comments@cspan.org. like this on c-span or follow us on twitter. >> scotland will vote on whether to end their political union with england. monday, bbc scotland hosted the party debate between leaders. the debate took place in glasgow. they spoke with a reporter before the debate.

>> scottish voters go to the polls soon. give us some background on the major players and some of the arguments they are making. the twoajor players are governments that are in control. the scottish government which has control over domestic wallace he in scotland through the parliament. the leader of the scottish national party. opposing him is the u.k. government which is a coalition of the conservative party under liberal democrats. clustered around both the governments are other parties that have a major or perhaps minor say in the way that scotland and the u.k. are run.

the labour party which is based on the number of people that vote for them, the largest party in scotland is allied with the u.k. government and alongside the scottish national party or some smaller parties such as the centerleft scottish green party and a couple of socialist parties and also a number of individuals who might vote for the labour party or liberal democrats that are coming on side on board with the -- they believe leaving would be better for scotland. >> what ethics have you been focused on in this referendum? >> the major issues are the strength and future of the economy and then one of the significant allied issues is the currency that scotland might use. there are issues such as the future value of the north sea oil and gas reserves which are

in scottishe part waters. even though they are part of the u.k.'s wealth and balance of trade if -- balance of trade. ofroximately 90% [indiscernible] and the other question that hinges on those issues and that is whether scotland would suffer or prosper from being part of a much larger state in the future. one of the issues for the independence campaign is sometimes in scotland scotland would be world or part of a greater u.k. state, a u.k. government for which most scottish voters have not actually voted. it in 20 10 the u.k. government became a coalition of the conservative party and the liberal democrat party. scotland's 59t of mp's. asre is -- issues such

welfare and the taxation system, the defense policy and whether we go to war can be decided in london by a government which does not necessarily have the consent of the scottish people. >> we will be joining you for debate that is happening today. we will have live coverage. that is between the first minister of scotland and also alastair darling who is in charge of this better together campaign. what can we expect to hear in this debate this afternoon? >> this is over the direction of welfare policy.

issues which are central to most political arguments. morepect alex to be much aggressive, much more negative when he takes on alastair darling. when they met for debate on the television the view is that he lost the -- the debate. he has the last opportunity to engage with a huge audience. whether this would be broadcast to put in a much more persuasive for coherent case in favor of independence of the pressure is on him to win. most of the pundits say if it is a score draw, if they come out even, that is a good result. all they have to do is defend their lead in the polls. mmond makes alex sa

the best of it. that is another good question. most have made their mind up. there is this contest for the hundreds of thousands of scots who may not yet have decided. trying to establish how many that is is quite difficult. you have to work out how you would judge whether somebody is wavering or undecided. we can estimate that approximately half a million scottish voters which is approximately 20% of the electorate either genuinely or are d [indiscernible]

this could be one of the most significant events. unlike in the u.s. where you have the presidential debate and it really is decided, the person , thewill lead the country presidential thing is about individuals, about personalities. this campaign is a much broader issue. it is about the future of the country. it is about the future of the economy. where people feel most comfortable and where they think the best long-term future for the country is. he could be the first minister but he could be voted out of power in 2016. his personality when it comes down to it when people go into the polling booths they will not be thinking about him, they will think about themselves, what is best for them and what is best for their country, the place they were. >> we appreciate your time. for those who want to follow your tweets during the debate they can find you

@severincarrell. thanks for the insight. >> 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 spendi c