countries. we could hear more about this and the president this afternoon. you scheduled to speak at the american legion national convention at noon and charlotte, north carolina. we plan to have live coverage of the president's comments. he is also expected to announce executive actions to improve the mental health and well-being of veterans. shortly after that, the new veterans affairs secretary will address the national convention. he has called for the resignation of eric shinseki four months ago. robert mcdonald took over the leadership at the end of july. live later this afternoon with a discussion on the future of the european union. . taking part in the wilson center, taking part at 330 eastern on c-span. heard, scotland will vote

on an independence referendum next month and decide whether to end their political union with england. bbc scotland hosted a second debate with the better together campaign leader, alastair garland. scott campbell announced the debate from the museum in glasgow. >> welcome to glasgow, where scotland decide. -- decides. ♪ [applause]

>> hello, and welcome to glasgow, as the independence referendum campaign enters its final stage. alex salmond leads the scottish national party, which has been leading this outage 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. 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, 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.

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 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. no one wants to go back. no 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. 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. 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 have 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 the -- 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 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? 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. 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 of 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. this will 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? >> 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 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 of 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. 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. at 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 -- 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] >> [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. 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 labour party, all the 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] >> we're approaching the wholesale value of oil. what the government should get -- >> [indiscernible] >> the north sea has been a colossal boon to this country for 40 years. what you come away from his 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 -- which would be more important to the economy as an independent scotland. don't you feel -- >> 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. 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 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't 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 was the 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, 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 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 does not 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. with the scottish currency, we saw what people get when they get new currency -- i want to know what plan b is. >> you do not have to point, alistair. [applause] i said that three plan b's for the price of one. you have got three plan b's tonight. [indiscernible] >> if people act that plan, will you as a democrat accept that is the will of the scottish people? [indiscernible] would you expect 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. -- is when 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 would pay, the amount of money for public services. it is playing games -- [indiscernible] >> if we win the referendum -- [indiscernible] >> nobody can hear. alistair darling. >> of course we could use a -- >> aha. aha. >> the problem is -- [applause]

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 -- >> alistair darling, if the rest of the united kingdom refuses a currency union, doesn't it leave it liable? >> [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] >> 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 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. >> 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 shirts. >> 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. 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? >> 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? >> 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 says 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 since 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 in edinburgh, but in london.

>> the next question is about scotland at home. the next question comes from linda. >> i want to know how you would change the nha or anyone, anyone a particular, evil 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 and rick --

in wales tonight, where the financial pressure has come under the budgets from london, people walking -- 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. 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 that 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 one 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, that is the way to guarantee spending on the national health service.

i'm glad we are discussing it. in the last debate they 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 ground] -- 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 one 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 an moment. why could not say that in your point on independence? your this? >> 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 happened -- 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 i ate percent. >> 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 eight or send. 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 knocking on discovery. 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 darling.

[applause] why has the shadow health secretary labor mean 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 label -- labour government. increasing spending on health 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] >> first of all, 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 the basement of 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 the not selling 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 ignore the service and wages. private conference 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. and watkins is our next questioner. >> if we are based together, why are we not raced 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.

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 down the tribe 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. when 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 cross minister i have been watching 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 believe 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. 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. my 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. 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 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. and 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] 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 other to condemn as he went on in his answer the way i believe that the blood disability -- 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 and 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 security to concentrate people -- compensate people from the ridiculous argument of a box room 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 amount of that so far. they will have a chance to conduct cross examinations provided they don't 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 was scotland and in sharing the pound is best for the united and him, 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? >> even your insults trade on >> 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? >> 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 have a commonsense currency. will you support that option? >> it is a rotten option. >> suppose you did not get a currency union. it is everybody's money. our wriggling 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 is seeking a clear mandate from the sovereign will of the scottish people. you have been asked a number of times, so i will accept the result.

will you campaign? [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? >> 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%. will you be prepared to support this -- sovereign role of the scottish people? >> questions from alistair darling. >> 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? >> 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%.

will you be prepared to support this -- sovereign role of the scottish people? >> 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. >> 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 they have -- that they will continue with labor -- the labor 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. >> 100,000 people with a disability, these are the people suffering the westminster government. and so, why are you standing here defending this success? >> come on. come on.

>> i disagree with your government and that people across parties believe we are better across the united kingdom. on the issues of welfare reform, on the issues of stopping poverty and making sure that we are a fair and just society, i think we can do that -- >> do you believe -- do you believe -- >> you are taking on. >> the national health service, they can't run down and privatize those directly. they can start with the resources cutting back on the money from the scottish government. >> i disagree with your government and that people across parties believe we are better across the united kingdom. on the issues of welfare reform, on the issues of stopping poverty and making sure that we are a fair and just society, i think we can do that -- >> do you believe -- do you believe -- >> do you believe -- do you

believe -- >> the national health service, they can't run down and privatize those directly. 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? >> i understand that many people think that it 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. >> although you have got to offer is what is great for starbucks. >> what army?

>> part of the united kingdom. >> we won't get there on her own. >> 100,000 children faced with disabilities. naming the powers for the parliament. [applause] >> telling me the money we will be using. >> what were you using? >> the time is up. 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. >> and employment advisor. >> i work for the scottish >> 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? the policy will be going into the first election of the independent scotland. the policy is to have the scott -- the fast lane to create a large number of jobs. 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. >> 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. >> something the people of england could 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 their jobs ever could.

i can think of 100 things that we could do rather than wasted on nuclear weapons. [applause] >> 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 revocable, made on the right asis. no folks, no fingers crossed. the reason they are not planning is that there is no mandate to do that in the association. >> in the u.k. cabinet yesterday they said that it was his graceful that they had not made any planning. the referendum we are having was consented upon and agreed by for the scottish government. the sovereign will of the scottish people might be. [applause]

>> this hate it will take until 2028, which is your policy, are you prepared to negotiate a shame mark >> i think that 5.5 years is a reasonable timescale to offer, as we have done in the white paper. our objective is to rid scotland of nuclear weapons. to be a member of nato and not the end of their country. the present secretary-general was the prime minister of denmark, a nonnuclear country. the next secretary-general, 20 out of 28 countries.

>> why is their hypocrisy for us but not in norway? >> we will move on to our final section about what happens after the referendum vote. the next question is submitted by e-mail. it crumbs from fred lister. in his view it has been a divisive campaign for the population generally. he wants to know how they will work together after this vote and how no votes will react to each other. >> if someone had asked me six months ago if the campaign had been divisive, i would have said not at all. it is about what he did over the last few weeks because both sides are passionate about what

they believe in. both sides have to accept the result. i hope that people do reject independence and i hope that people will work together to build a better, stronger, fairer scotland. if i lose and he wins i have to accept that it is it, it is a revocable and we are not going back. frankly it is for all of us. after what has been the longest election campaign that i have ever experienced, we have to remember that in the next morning we have to get on with the problems we have in the health service, issues of social justice, they all need attending to. [applause] >> i agree with much of what

alastair has just said there. i think that this is been people who have never thought about voting for political parties. this is a hugely exciting time for scotland. the overall result is going to be scotland coming together and pledging a yes vote with 18 months of negotiation involving the scottish national party. but all of the best parts of the challenge of scotland.

giving the best possible settlement for scotland. once the referendum is over, it is a matter of team scotland. that is what we need. [applause] >> i want to get some final thoughts from members of the audience about what happened after the vote. >> you mentioned that we would have a turnout of about eight percent in this referendum. how do we make sure that people stay as interested in politics regardless of the referendum? >> we will come back to that in a moment. >> can mr. darling tell us about the further powers he will be campaigning for an scotland? >> and the gentleman here? >> i think that so far many of the points have been about the benefits of the union.

there is no strong case being made for knowing case in the union. >> to stress that scotland should not lie on oil, yet your government put our country, scotland, into an illegal war for oil. men and women died there. >> with the glasses, yes. >> fundamentally this year is yes, campaign has been fought passionately for scotland. >> alastair darling? [applause] >> i think you are fairly committed on the other side, but this is not about me or him, but the children and generations on

the other side, making sure they make the right decision on the 18th. i am passionate for being part of the united kingdom. >> i thought of some great questions there. if we could address the questions of how to sustain that engagement? the formation of a constitution for an independent scotland. >> we could move to our final section. shaving off a few seconds from those. it will be the end of this evening's debate. we have time to hear from each speaker. alexander hammond, you are first. >> the decisions that we make for this generation, dedicating

this opportunity to devote themselves to independence in the ballot ox, it is an opportunity that may not come our way again. when we go into the polling station we will be taking the future of our country into our hands and the means of taking advantage of it. we must rise to these challenges to solve them. in contrast, the north campaign has absolutely nothing positive to say about the future of this country. in reality there is only one thing that they can guarantee, at each and every election we will get the government that we vote for.

the choices that the people in scotland make, it will be placed in the hands of the scottish. it is not me, alastair, or the newspapers or anything. this is about the future of scotland. it is about believing that we can govern ourselves that are that anyone else can. we don't need to rise and be a nation again. this is our time, our moment. let's seize it with both hands. [applause] >> alastair darling? >> no country unlike scotland, none can compare. in the invention of medicine, scotland gave the world the age of and -- the age of them might meant. but i don't think we would be as

successful as scotland would the as part of the united kingdom. i believe that we will do better and prosper together by building our strengths in scotland and being part of that larger united kingdom. any country's starting point is currency, money. just as every household depends on monday, uncertainty around currency can ring a country to its needs. -- to its knees. when we can't control the currency, i don't think that that can be trusted. frankly, scare stories about the national health service i think are beneath contempt. we have had 3.5 hours of prime television time and i have not heard straight answers to a simple question. they say that we don't need to know what plan b is. yes, we do. we do not need to divide these

islands into separate states in order to assert our scottish identity. we can have more decisions taken here backed up on the strength and security provided by the united kingdom. i say that we all have no options other than to say politely, respectfully, and firmly no thanks to independence. [applause] >> that is at the end of our time. all that remains is for me to thank alastair darling and our audience here in glasgow and to thank you for being with us for this debate tonight. it continues across the bbc and on radio scotland. from all of us here, good night. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> a picture from earlier today

-- a tweet from senator john mccain, a picture of him spotting condors at vermillion cliffs national monument yesterday. today, he is urging arizona voters to get out and cast their votes in arizona's binary, one of four states holding elections today. congress is still on their recess, their five-week recess. they will return on september 8 and we will have live coverage of the house here on c-span. the president is in charlotte, north carolina. this tweet by a white house

correspondents as president board marine one. he says the press secretary will not discuss aerial surveillance of syria but president obama has not made any decisions about until -- about military options in syria. another tweet says on the timing of decisions on possible military action in syria, the hesident's spokesperson says cannot say if he will act. president obama will be speaking at the american legion national convention today. that is set for noon eastern. we plan to have live coverage as the president is expected to talk about the mental well-being of veterans. will have that live here on c-span. shortly after the president, new veterans secretary will address secretaryan leader -- mcdonald became the leader at

the end of last month. continues atage 3:30 would we bring you a discussion on the future of the european union. the european union secretary-general is visiting the united states today and will speak at the wilson center. >> ladies and gentlemen, i am going to get us back underway. these continue with that, and we will also hope that people in the hallway can rejoin us, and

be as quiet in entering as you can. let me reconvene our program at 1:10, and we are fortunate to have our next speaker as our post-lunch speaker to discuss current threats and a way forward to meet the challenge, and one only has to read the newspaper or watch television for a few minutes to understand how important a subject has become again. america's memory is short, but hopefully people that work with frank, who is the director of the homeland security policy institute, have long memories at the george washington diversity where his institute is located. frank is our speaker in a few moments. he is the associate vice president at the george washington university. i am sure he is a leader there in many regards. frank is routinely called upon,

but i think all the time called upon to advise senior officials in the executive branch, u.s. armed services, on a variety of national and homeland security issues. there is probably no one who has a broader vision of homeland security. he has published extensively in academic law, business, and policy journals. i remember frank from the early days of homeland security, because i think tom ridge did not leave home without frank with him. he served in the office of the white house called the office of homeland security. it was really a small shop. frank grew it into $40 billion enterprise, the department of

homeland security today. before the white house, frank was involved with the center for strategic and international studies. literally ,i could go on and on about his background and resume, but let me now introduce him. frank cilluffo. frank? >> thank you for that overly kind introduction. that would be a bumper sticker, frank cilluffo -- degrees of varying ignorance in the various subjects. fortunately the environment we are facing today plays to one of my strengths, may add. if you were to close your eyes, have a map in front of you and point to any place on the map, in all likelihood you will fall into a bull's-eye of a crisis

that we are facing right now. i will spare the obligatory lawyer joke. i normally like lawyers to be behind me. i also have the greatest respect and appreciation for what the american bar association does, my colleague jim turner and what all of you do to advance the national security and improve homeland security. i hope that you continue to do this great work as our country needs it. what i thought i would do very quickly is if you were to close her eyes and point to anywhere on the map, whether it is ukraine, crimea, north korea, whether it is what is unfolding so tragically in syria and iraq,

whether it is the sahel, where you see vast territory under the control of islamists and foreign terrorist organizations, whether it is the ebola outbreak in africa, or cyber threats, the reality is unfolding and feels like it is unfolding quicker, faster and more dangerously than ever before. i do not know if you have had the opportunity to read general flynn's outgoing interview but well worth taking 5 to 10 minutes to read some of his views. he was the head of the senate intelligence committee. the takeaway is this is certainly one of the most

dangerous time in his lifetime in terms of an era of threats and compared it perhaps to world war ii where you have some of the most evil manifestations of what humanity has seen. it is worth looking at. i think accelerating all of this is this connection of technology, whether it is social media. you start seeing just how effective social media has been for our at the series to radicalize and recruit individuals, just look in syria and iraq. you have a surge, 13,000 foreign fighters joining the ranks of jihadist organizations. these are not small numbers, but big numbers. obviously when you talk about foreign fighters, at least 3000 of which are westerners, that adds all whole new level of concern to our homeland and to the changing threat environment. these individuals are familiar

with the country, speak the language, know the culture, and know everything about us. at some point many of these people return. that is something perhaps we do not feel the full effect of what it means right now, but two or three years from now i think you will see it manifest in very new and dangerous sorts of ways. if you were to look at the threat environment right now and try to understand the terrorism environment, it does come in various shapes, sizes, and forms, ranging from al qaeda senior leadership is still in business. how effective are they? i think that is the wrong set of questions, because i think what you are starting to see is conflation is many of the organizations that are sort of going in an outsource model. an open source model whether working with, between and among one another. you see a conflation of conflict zones.

you cannot fully separate al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and yemen and al qaeda from what you see unfold in syria and iraq. more individuals are being challenged by the adversary who can be turned around and sent back home, back to their homelands. sent back because of their recognition of the region. we did a major study in 2007, i want to say. looking at the foreign fighter trends and trajectories. at that time we started looking at a largely because of one particular case. does anyone remember that case? this was a naturalized american who went to afghanistan. his intent was to fight alongside the taliban. he was intercepted by al qaeda,

turned around, and said you are a much greater value to target the united states. he was behind the plot, a very sinister plot, to basically -- suicide, homicide bombings on the new york subway. this is the time i think our country was blinking really red. unfortunately he got further along than any of us would feel comfortable with. in part because we did not have the synchronization and innovation we strive toward for law enforcement and what have you. the plot materialized in denver, new york, had an overseas component. so we went out and started doing some analysis on this. the simple takeaway was foreign fighters are nothing new. if you go back to afghanistan, the first fight against the

soviets, you will see a number of westerners fighting alongside their erstwhile threats in the region as well. the difference is the numbers are falling in terms of scale. the demographic is changing, and many of them are coming back to the west. when you look at even the al qaeda threat, i think everyone would have liked to have said ding, dong, the witch is dead. let's worry about all of the challenges facing the economic situation and everything else we all struggle with on a daily basis. the reality is the threat was not that. part of that is getting to the recognition and understanding that it is not about networks or organizations alone, but the ideology. to paraphrase, clinton said it is the economy, stupid, but in this case the ideology, stupid.

it is fueling the organizations and is quicker and faster and resonates with the percentage of people around the world that i think should warrant a lot of concern. so we need to continue to push the envelope militarily and tactically, but also recognize until we address the underpinnings of the threat, we will have tactics masquerading as strategies, so we will have to get to the point collectively to be able to undermine, expose the hypocrisy of the narrative, and quite bluntly, attacking it. then when you start looking into africa, why africa and the tribal areas and afghanistan and pakistan?

why the sahel and magreb? these are undercovered spaces, vacuums that are being filled by -- they have the time and ability to maneuver and plan attacks. i think one of the challenging issues we have all tried to address in recent years is take drones. at the end of the day, i would rather our enemies look over their shoulders then giving them more time to plot or recruit and engage in terrorist activity. is it a panacea? absolutely not. is it an important instrument? yes, it is. but it has to be combined with other instruments that quite honestly we're not that comfortable as a country or a world addressing. i think that is something we need to worry about. isis.

if you look at the tragic news in terms of the beheading of an american, this is part of their narrative. their narrative is to demonstrate we are vulnerable, we should be afraid, and they will continue to engage in this activity. i would advise no one to watch that video because in a way we are giving them the oxygen they look for, that they seek to be able to fulfill those objectives. that said, we cannot aid nor these particular issues. i hate to say it, but i think you will see more incidents along these lines. it is very reflective in recent history of what zarkawi was doing. he was terrorist number one in iraq, and he actually crossed the line someone say by bombing a jordanian wedding where he

killed a number of wedding goers and family members. what you ended up seeing was basically a pushback that he crossed the line and was behind a lot of beheadings and gruesome video and ultimately did not resonate and sell in the way he was looking for. it did for small percentage, but not all. another was basically sending notes to him suggesting that this is to buy links, we will never be able to win the so-called hearts and minds that they were trying to in their obscure in twisted little way trying to do. i am not sure it has staying power, but i think it is almost irrelevant. they are basically looking for small numbers to engage in activity very quickly. if you are to believe what you see out of recent reporting out

of the u.k., you have 500 brits fighting alongside isis in iraq and syria. you have 900 french, according to security services. you have up to approximately 100 americans fighting alongside the individuals. these arm not small numbers. terrorism is by definition a small numbers business. you cannot afford small numbers of incidents because it has catastrophic potential impact. i think that is something we need to be thinking about, especially in terms of threats to the homeland. if you look at isis, it's arguably the most well-funded terrorist organization in history.

they rob banks, oil fields, someone is buying this. i hope that is where we start squeezing some of that. i have they have a sense of momentum and safe haven. at some point they will turn the canons away in terms of the threat here, looking here, unless we can ramp up our activity. that is why i support airstrikes right now, because i do not see better alternatives. so the most frightening thing for me was i do think there was a time where threat level had dropped. i think we got lulled into a false sense of complacency. i think now if you were to look at the threat level, in many ways it does mirror the pre-9-11 environment. there are many things to bear in terms of intent and numbers. in terms of the actual

counterterrorism tools we need to bring to bear, to me it is about addressing narratives. there are some great programs people are not aware of at the state department and some of the other entities that are forward leaning, in terms of humor. in terms of other safe havens, mali is one of concern. i think the french deserve credit in terms of terrorism, food, yes, and wine, maybe. they were able to preemptively get in front of what was going

to be a much greater threat in terms of immediacy but that, too, does not last forever. the question is how do we start addressing these issues? nigeria and boca haram. you want to turn off the tv. you want to stop reading your twitter feeds, stop reading the newspapers because it really is a gruesome organization. you got people being killed on a regular basis. you are seeing swaths of girls and now boys being kidnapped for what? for trying to be human, studying, trying to be part of society. i am not sure how we best get

our arms around that but we need to build up capacity because we cannot do it all. i would argue boots on the ground would be the last option of any of these places. this plays to the enemies narrative and quite honestly as much as we can deal with counterterrorism, we will never kill and capture of her way to victory alone. al-shabbab in somalia, good news there, but i think some of that is already beginning to fade. here you also have a very vicious terrorist organization that can easily make inroads. from a u.s. perspective, it's perhaps a community least integrated into the united states. so many found their way to yemen.

we are not out of the woods there yet either. aqap is still -- they have had the u.s. in its crosshairs for a very long time. up until what we saw unfold in iraq it would've been a very dangerous situation. so i hate to say it, but we have got a lot to worry about overseas. then what you see is what is old is new in new is old. russia -- it's back. dust off all your cold war papers. hate to say it, but we need to start thinking about what all of that means and their use of proxies. if you start seeing in the 1980's when i first started working these counterterrorism

issues in the 1990's, we were worried about state-sponsored terrorism. it's back, whether it is iran in terms, of russia providing near or plausible deniability using their proxies, which is not new. that is how they attacked estonia, and now starting to see it through physical means. why russia is perhaps greater concern is they have nukes, a lot of them. those can be a game-changer types of incidents. we have to be careful how we address the issues, because as brutal and gruesome as terrorism is, when you are dealing with a nuclear threat, that can be a game changer quickly. obviously you have biodefense

issues. if you look at it from an instrumentality perspective, the area we have done the least amount of work, whether it is foreign terrorists or even nation states engaging in biowarfare and appointment. these are the things that can be game changers, tipping points. you need to be cognizant of them. then of course we still have a homegrown threat. this comes in various stripes and forms. i think that here we are going to be so focused on many of these folks traveling overseas that you will have some that don't travel overseas and will stay off the radar seem that can be significant and real threats. the long-winded way of saying we ain't out of the woods, but i do think there is some potential

for optimism here. a lot of this coming at a time when i think americans' trust in the government is at an all-time lows. i think we have to figure out how we can engage in the use and maintain the right balance because we do not ever want to tip it too far in one direction, but at the same time need to acknowledge and not simply wish threats away. in terms of cyber, which is gobbling up most of my time these days, i think we are at a very early stage in recognizing some of the threat and what it means. we are not going to defeat cyber. we're going to have to get to the point where we understand how our adversaries use cyber to achieve objectives, whether it is what we see on the

counter radicalization side or whether it is more computer network exploit or computer network attack, i.e. using cyber as a weapon to be able to attack our systems. but when i see and read the media here, i am less depressed because i did not think they understand it yet. right now i call it kids' soccer everyone chasing the shiny toy or ball. if you were to read the newspaper, you could not delineate the term web pack and more sophisticated computer networking attack. so i think we have to get to the point where we can get more clarity in terms of what we mean with respect to cyber. you cannot mirror image our adversaries. if you were to look at the very top it would be russians, chinas, united states, some of our allies. but by and large, their intent,

unless escalating in a military situation, is not to take down and attack systems unless they are threated. by and large it is exploit, which means they are in the business of stealing secrets. those are jobs. innovation, that is what keeps america going forward and vulnerable and susceptible which means it is being stolen at huge amounts like that. if you are in the chinese minds, what would deter you from not spending best? that is basically the way they're looking at it.

all this moral equivalency discussion the post equivalent discussion. of course we engage in intelligence collection but not engaging in that to support apple or ibm or ford or any american company. the difference is there you have national assets and resources being engaged and used to benefit companies. that is an unfair playing field and not the playing field anyone should want to play on because it gets to the very core of who we are as a society. who america is as a country. to me, that is a marketplace issue that needs to be addressed. i am somewhat optimistic we can get to some of those solutions. take russia and china, are they engaging computer military attack for of these purposive? absolutely.

i cannot separate what is physical and cyber anymore. they're all on and the same. but who are the countries we need to be most worried about from a national security immediate perspective? that is iran, north korea. what they can't engage kinetically, they can try to engage through cyber means. quite honestly they are. they are attempting. doing the equivalent of intelligence perforation on the battlefield. even a company like citigroup or bank of america or goldman sachs, they were not built to defend against nation states or national capabilities, but that is the battlefield we are in today. you cannot separate what is in the government and private sector. if i were to tell you who is most concerned from an attack standpoint, probably the government of iran, through proxy or some of these other proxies they are using.

the russians are doing this every day. it does provide plausible deniability because smoking keyboards are hard to find. i do not know who is behind the clickety clack of the keyboard. we are getting better at attribution. finally you are starting to see criminal enterprises, with capabilities that used to be in the hands of government alone, and duration criminal enterprises. look at the target hack. that is what you are seeing combat is what you are reading. i'm glad it opens up people's eyes