and welcome, assuming we want more growth and prosperity for the american people. thank you. >> on that happy note,.gov for coming. please join me in thanking our speakers. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a discussion on terror threats to the u.s.. >> scotland will vote on a

independence referendum and decide whether to and their union with england. . debate was hosted bbc scotland's glen scotland --g that willhe vote decide scotland's future. ♪

[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. the poll tax debate.

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 food banks 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. i want to build a fairer society. 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 message is that no thanks will not mean no change. there will be more powers for the scottish on taxes, welfare. 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 th'?

>> 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 same. 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 -- [applause] >> we're approaching the wholesale value of oil. what the government gets is a tax from that. >> [indiscernible] >> the north sea has been a colossal boon to this country for 40 years. what you come away from his once -- from this, 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? 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? [applause] >> as a former chancellor, what would your advice be? >> all fallback positions are secondt >> 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?

>> they're all second best. >> i'm very clear. the pound sterling is the best for scotland. >> it's not like a c.d. collection that you split up in a divorce. the value of the pound sterling is the bank of eppingland that stands behind it and the u.k. government stands behind that. that's why the pound sterling is acceptable. the lady up there was asking about the euro. it is the case that every country that has joined the european union after 1996 has been obliged to join the euro. we'll have to see what happened then. but in relation to the currency union, i'll be brief, even if you have one, you can't understand why they'd want one because borrowing, tax and

spend will be decided not here, but would then be a government in london. [applause] question ve on to our and indeed the next section of the debate is on scotland at home. the next question comes from linda. >> i want to know how you would change the n.h.a. for everyone, but in particular for people 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 national health service because we have operational control of it but we don't have financial it and that's a serious problem. the people watching tonight, where the national health service spending has been reduced in real terms, because of the financial pressure on the budgets from london, there e people watching in england 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 charging and the general cuts to public spending, then the not because they can force us to privatize the health service in scotland, because they can, it's the financial process makes things extremely difficult for the health service in scotland. and that is why to have a health service we can all trust and rely on, we've got to have a health service where we have financial control as well as policy control, so as we can keep the national health service as the greatest public institution of scotland.

[applause] >> the health service is critically important to all of us in scotland. it's one of the probably most cherished institutions there is in the country. and that is one of the reasons that i believe being part of the united nations means that we have that -- united kingdom means that we have that strength and security that means that we can fund it, especially with the pressures of an aging population here in scottland. at the moment, and quite rightly, the total control over the n.h.s. lies with the scottish parliament and the scottish government. not only in terms of policy but actually in terms of financing. the scottish parliament can decide how much or how little it spends, how much it spends in the public sector, how much it spends in the private sector and the scottish government has spent in the last couple of years nearly $100 million pounds of n.h.s. money through the prife sector in order to meet its -- private sector in order to meet its target. both governments are doing that. because of the strength and the security of the united kingdom, public spending here is 1,00

pounds ahead more than it is in the rest of the united kingdom and that's the way to guarantee spending on the national health service. i'm glad we're discussing it. at the last debate, the n.h.s. was mentioned once. since that debate, and all the business over currency, we've been subjected to a scare campaign principally aimed at what's going on in england. [laughter] he was endorsing a claim that operations were being stopped at a hospital in gateshead, in the northeast of england, because of privatization. it turns out the allegation was simply untrue. it was a complete fabrication. [applause] what we need is less of that and more -- and a realization that actually we all want the n.h.s. to do well. we all want it to be there when we need it. but to do that you need funding and frankly taking on risks, not even knowing what currency you've got, is the real threat to the national health service. >> let's put to this then.

[applause] i will be seeking further audience contributions in just a moment. why doesn't it say it's the only way to protect the n.h.s.? >> that's been a long-term argument of the case for independence. i'm not saying that we can be forced to privatize the health service in scotland, because we have operational control of the national health service. what i am saying is that general cutbacks in england are moved toward privatization and charging 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 what's happening in wales today. but a labor administration has been forced to cut back national health service spending in real terms because of that budgetary pressure. now, we've protected it in scotland today, it is extraordinarily difficult. others say we can choose, but

the overall scottish budget has been cut by 8%. [inaudible] >> the n.h.s. in england is rising and continues to rise. in what year do you think it will fall? >> which is why i've said that overall budget for scotland has been cut by 8%. if we, as we have, decided to protect the national health service, which we've done, that means that the rest of the budget takes a 12% cut. now, if as we believe, and labor of course believes in englpped, that the privatization agenda and a charging agenda in the national health service, it means less public money spent in england and that knocks onto scotland. nobody believes that privatizing the health service to increase public spending, nobody believes that. therefore to protect the national health service, we have to control it financially as well as in policy terms, to keep it safe, in public hands.

>> let's bring in alexander darling. [applause] let me ask a question. if the scottish national party is wrong about this, why has the shadow health secretary been warning about the demise of the n.h.s.? >> because there is a big argument going on actually in scotland and in england. as to exactly how much private sector provision do you use as particulate of the overall treatment? actually in public spending terms, whether the n.h.s. spends its money directly or through a private contractor, doesn't make any difference in terms of the amount of money that we get. but there's an important point here, throughout all the time of the labor government of which i was a member, we increased spending on health, it has carried on increase under the present government and it's due to carry on increasing in the next few years. don't just believe me, there's an article today that made that point. which leads me to wonder why. firstly, in the last debate, the n.h.s. was mentioned once. in the constitution he published the draft constitution for scotland in

june the n.h.s. wasn't mentioned at all. this has all come along as part of the referendum campaign. it may well be an issue in the general election, but what i really resent is using scare stories like the one in the hospital in the northeast in order to make a point which has got nothing to do with this referendum. [applause] >> let's hear from the audience. the lady towards the front here. >> i would like to encourage everybody, whether you're voting yes or no or you're undecided, don't believe a word that come it's out -- comes out of darling's mouth. you and your labor government started the privatization of the health service, yes, you did. >> no, we didn't. >> half of your boys in wednesday minister have investments in health companies. if you get any more insights to speak at dinners for private you can pany, i hope

-- [inaudible] >> ok, thank you. [applause] >> mr. darling is the real threat to scotland's budget. not the scrapping of the formula which has been advocated by several ministers and the current cabinet. >> the way in which money is shared out across the u.k., all the nations of the u.k. i'll take another gentleman in the middle here in the blue shirt, yes. >> you're talking about saving the n.h.s. and its importance. why then are you allowing trials down in england so you can get health care? all that's going to do is erode wages, erode the service and ll the people -- [inaudible] that's not going to help us in any shape or form.

>> ok, one more right up there. the back. gentleman in the blue t-shirt. >> what about the post office? can you privatize that? >> let's stick with the national health service. that's probably enough to cope with at the moment. >> i didn't privatize the post office. but in relation to that health service. every one of us here, and most people in this country want to see a strong and thriving health service. that's my concern. and i think we can best do that by being part of the u.k. where you've got higher public expenditure, which goes to health service in scotland, we have an aging population in scotland, we have a rising health need and i don't want to put that at risk. when i look at independent experts, not anything i'm saying, who look at scotland's budgetary position, they've identified a six billion pound black hole over anything therapy might bring, i don't want to put the health service

at risk. public services are more squeezed, who are pressured and cut in a way that i don't think any of us want to see. i'm not prepared to take that risk. [applause] >> the risk to national health service comes from the cutbacks we've already had from westminster. the threat of 25 billion pounds more. the labor party in england are warning cloud and clear of the risk of privatization throughout the national health service. so the labor party in wales say they've been forced to cut health expenditure because of the budgetary pressure from westminster. are you the only person who doesn't realize what's going on in england and wales and the threat to scotland unless we establish financial control to protect our own health service? [applause]

>> in a sentence, i recognize budgetary constraints everywhere. what i'm saying is, what you're [speakers e] speaking simultaneously] >> let's take another question and move the discussion on. nick watkins is our next uestioner. >> if we're better together, why are we not better together already? [applause] >> because i believe that we can be -- do better, we can be more prosperous, we can have more options open to us by being proud of what we do in scotland but 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 developed and most advanced research medical centers where people working

there on possible cures and treatments for cancer, not just from scotland, but from all over the country. why are they there? because they attract a very large share of u.k. research money. what these experts said to me, if they lose that u.k. research money, by losing the u.k., that will mean that we lose that center of expertise. that's not just important in medical care but in terms of jobs that will come from being able to develop treatments and products that is come from that. that's one example. or do you take from example the hearings from glasgow? there have been huge problems with the threatens closure of fergusons but there's a lot of royal navy work here that depends on the royal navy. there's defense jobs throughout scotland. they're all examples of where jobs will come from in the future and if we lose those jobs, it will put a barrier between those firms and businesses. that will have a very bad affect on the prose expect. so, yes, things are difficult just now for very obvious

reasons. but i believe that we're making a huge mistake to take on risks that we don't need and giving up opportunities we need for our children and generations to ome. [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. you say those are threats to ship building 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 3,000 under the united kingdom. so when that gentleman said, and he wasn't just talking about ship building, if we're better together why don't we see it now, that faceses a reality. in so many areas of life, of poverty, of food banks, of child poverty, of the loss of industrial jobs, westminster stands inindicted because of of -- [speakers speaking simultaneously] [applause] >> there are many issues we could be discussing. let me pick up on one. the wealthier issue that you mentioned toward the end of your contribution. the scottish government estimate that as a result of disability, living loans being replaced with personal

independent payment, more than 100,000 disabled scotts will lose money. do you support that reform? >> no one can support people who need help being denied help. no one can possibly support that. and we have as a country our obligations that are a responsibility to help people who need support. however, to do that you need the means to do it. what concerns me is that if you end up in a situation where you're cutting off opportunities for firms that generate wealth and therefore generate taxation to pay for these things, this is going to be less likely that you can provide the level of support they need in the future. that's why that approach is wrong. we know, we know that people with disabilities, we know we've got an aging population that will require more medical care, we know we've got a full working-age population. why take that burden on five million people who it could be pooled and shared across 63 million? it makes no sense whatsoever. [applause] >> is it better to have a

system that draws on taxes from the whole of the united kingdom rather than just those who play in scotland? >> clearly not. in your question you gave the answer. there are indeed 100,000 scotts with disability who are falling victim to the wealthy. darling didn't bother to condemn as he went on in his answer. well, i condemn the way that people with disability are being treated. and i think it's an indictment of the way that westminster has handled social security. we've got difficult troubled economic times. but the mark of a government of concern is when you're in difficult economic times, you don't take it out on the disabled and you don't take it out on families with children and you don't impose the bedroom tax which must be the most ludicrous tax of all time. >> isn't that the point? [applause] when cash is short, independent scotland may well have to make some of the very difficult choices that the u.k. government is making at the moment. >> we made a choice in the scottish parliament.

the westminster government introduced the bedroom tax. we have taken money out of other resources in the parliament, despite the fact that we don't control social security, to compensate people for the ridiculous argument that if you have a disability and you need a spare work for your equipment, that all of a sudden you are going to lose housing benefits. we have to take 50 million pounds to compensate in order to make sure that ordinary scotts didn't suffer or were penalized. [applause] >> the bedroom tax is thoroughly bad in every respect. and needs to be repealed and what's more, we have said that if we are elected next year, not only will we repeal it in the general election -- [speakers speaking imultaneously]

[applause] >> we've got to move on. to the next section of this evening's debate. and both our contributors will now have the opportunity to cross examine what another, although they've been doing a fair bit of that already so far, they'll have eight minutes each to conduct their cross examination and i'll only step in if it gets too heated. mr. darling won the toss on this issue and has elected to go first. >> i want to go back to currency. on sunday i read in the newspapers that you wished our ast debate you made a better discussion of plan b. tell me. [inaudible] [applause] >> let me try again. we think that having the currency arrangement, scotland

and england sharing the pound, is best for scotland and best for the rest of the united kingdom for the reasons that i said. the other options for scotland, the three plan b's, as i described them. >> which one? >> i've outlined the flexibility union, countries like sweden and norway have. an exchange rate like denmark has or hong kong has with the dollar. i've pointed out, thankfully you admitted earlier none this debate, we can't be used from -- stopped from using the pound anyway. [applause] not one, three. >> the reason i'm raising it again, because the currency is the foundation of our economy. it's the foundation of what we have to save as the value of our money, our interest rates, how much we can spend on things. i want you to contemplate the impossible. ask yourself, you're wrong, you don't get a -- [inaudible] what is your plan b? you must have a plan b? >> even your insults are

deflated. that's incredible. the very obvious question to say why we're so adamant at putting forward what's best for scotland, is i'm sticking a mandate, i'm sticking mandate from the people here, from the people at home, i want to mandate so we can go in with the will of the scottish people to have a commonsense, common currency. if we get that mandate, if we win, will you support that ption? >> all i'm asking you is suppose for one moment you didn't get a currency union, we have to note, it's not your money, what is it? are we going to have our own currency? are we going to end up like panama? one of your top advisors said we might have a panamanian solution, using the currency for a transitional period of ix months.

>> an independent scotland would be the first country in history where you describe all the currency options as wrong. i'm first minister. i want to go into this referendum seeking a clear mandate from the sovereign will of the scottish people. you've been asked a number of times, if you win the referendum, i will accept the result. if the other side wins the referendum, will you campaign for what the -- [inaudible] [speakers speaking imultaneously] >> with papers going out the day after tomorrow, people want to know what is going to happen to the money they've got, what currency are they going to have if they don't have a currency union? >> i think there will be a currency union.

if you go down the road of denying access to the bank of england, you end up stuck with all the debt. debt incidentally, which you and the current chants lore managed to accumulate 60%, now, won't you tell us, will you be prepared to support the southern will of the scottish people? if your side wins the referendum? >> questions from mr. darling and answers from the minister. [speakers speaking simultaneously] >> let me ask but another plan b, about all revenues. we're talking earlier about the fact that revenues were five billion pounds less than you expected last year, which is more than we spend on the school's budget. now, when we were in the u.k., that can be dealt with. if you're an independent country and you just lost the equivalency of school's budget, how would you make up the gap? >> the advisor for 25 years

wrote last week, he said, there's no black hole in the scottish government's oil estimates. that the u.k. treasury and the o.b.r. are missing a mountain sir donald ble] mckay gave that estimate last week. also, when you're the chancellor, you forecast that it would be six billion in 2011. in fact, it turned out to be 11 billion in 2011. so therefore -- [inaudible] [speakers speaking simultaneously] >> enormous natural resource, -- en you have revenues [speakers speaking simultaneously] >> if you have lost six billion pounds of revenues, because the production goes down, how do you make up the difference when you've lost that much? >> production is going up. that's why oil companies are

invested seven billion pounds. >> nobody can hear you if you talk over one another. >> that investment is offset against revenues. but they're investing it to increase production. we know -- >> we know why it's going up. >> 80% -- >> we know that north sea oil production is going up because of a u.k. subsidy, a u.k. subsidy that is going into decommissioning. but i'm asking you, as an independent scotland, if you suddenly lost revenues, the equivalent of everything we spend on schools, just one year, how do you make up the difference? >> that is exactly why we put forward the fund for stabilization which allows you o save when oil is high. [speakers speaking imultaneously]

>> in the last 23 years scotland has spent more than has gone in. >> that's not true. >> it is true. >> in the last five years, relative to the united kingdom, scotland was eight billion pounds better off or would have been as an independent country. you know that. speaking simultaneously] >> a final minute to get another question in. >> i'm asking you, if you're hitched with a six billion pound deficit identified by the international -- the institute of fiscal studies which you quote with approval in your paper, they say we're going to have to find six billion pounds more over and above austerity, how would you find it? are you going to raise taxes or cut services? >> scotland would be a

prosperous economy if it were independent. [speaking simultaneously] >> you had a debt of 150 billion pounds. >> answer the question. speaking simultaneously] >> he can't answer a basic question on currency. he can't answer basic questions -- [inaudible] [applause] >> ok, you now have eight minutes to cross examine mr. darling. >> how many children in scotland is it estimated that will move into poverty by 2020, given that the u.k. government's welfare spending cuts? >> too many children are moving into poverty. >> how many? >> do you know what? >> how many are there? >> the time i was in government we downed the number of people living in poverty. it depends what the government policies are. speaking simultaneously]

>> we need a strong economy to make sure that doesn't happen. >> what's the estimate? >> there are too many children living in poverty. >> what's the -- it's 100,000 extra children in scotland moving into poverty with the welfare reforms. do you think that's a price worth paying for westminster government? >> i don't agree with the present government's welfare policy. i'm a labor politician. i want to see a labor government leblingted -- elected next year. [applause] >> the labor party has said they will continue with the welfare policies of the government. 100,000 people with disabilities have also been affected by the welfare reforms. is that a price worth paying westminster

government? >> i said earlier, as a society we have an obligation to ensure that we get children out of poverty. hold a minute. stop interrupting. for example, the government has cut a billion pounds from antipoverty programs, you've cut 130,000 college brace, most people ere going into whose only way out of poverty was education. [speaking simultaneously] 100,000 people with disability. these are the people who are suffering from westminster government, that's all very well for to you say you're a labor politician, but why are you standing here defending a policy -- [inaudible] [applause] >> i disagree with the conservative government. i disagree with your government. i believe people across parties believe we're better as part of the united kingdom, just like you're in bed with people you wouldn't normally be in bed with. on the issues of welfare reform, on the issues of stopping poverty, on the issues of ensuring we're a fair and justice society, i believe we can best do that with the

resources that come from being a part of the united kingdom. >> if we move to national health service, that means we can't run down and privatize or n.h.s. directly the way they're doing in england. what they can do is start resourcing. they're cutting back on the money provided to the scottish >> the amount of money -- the amount of money -- the. of money that is being spent on the health service is increasing. >> if i can -- >> ever since that time -- you can decide on a moment. you can decide how much money should be spent. >> carefully. >> don't stop blaming other people. >> that is not in the scottish government. is there an accurate statement of the submission? >> i know they are -- everybody either work manager the health service and using the health service want to see it properly

funding. i say to you, the position in scotland is for you to decide how much to spend on it. >> just cut back [inaudible] alistair. any amount [overlapping speakers] >> the point time and time again. >> it is for you to decide. >> don't play games with me. >> this is no game. >> it's an issue that -- -- >> it's up to you to decide >> alistair, how much do your colleagues estimate it will cost to replace the try dent nuclear 2020. in >> i don't think you choose between defending the country and health service. >> how much? >> some 8 billion poubds. >> a year? >> i don't think that -- [overlapping speakers] >> downtown lecture me on that.

>> i'm telling you -- >> government that makes -- spend more money on the health service and given -- >> found a sensible allocation of resources when the health service is under pressure, alistair. >> i understand there are many people who think tri dent is wrong. >> hold on. >> i do think that we have an obligation to defend this country just as we have an obligation to spend mid-atlantic on health service. >> job [inaudible] parties intend to give the scottish parliament. the st of all, involving world program -- i want to see it. >> wait till you get the answer. >> let -- >> what would be first. the jobs program first of all.

secondly, making sure that we guarantee people, if they're unemployed, getting back into work either through work or raining and critly, commitly maintaining the united kingdom. slapslap >> you can't name three -- name two. > i've told you -- >> the program in terms of work, the program in terms of -- >> being part to have the united kingdom means jobs -- >> what do you mean -- >> the job policy that you're going to guarantee to the scottish parliament? >> the scottish parliament has full authority over health, education. in addition to that we have more power in rells to welfare. >> they do create jobs, the

public creates jobs. critly, what we do -- the united kingdom creates jobs. >> no, they're not. >> i'm asking you, what powers are the parties going to transfer to the scottish parliament to enable us to take more jobs. name three. >> i've told you. >> no, you haven't. >> -- the same part of the united kingdom is the best way of guaranteeing the future. >> name one. >> thousands of jobs -- you and me. you're promising a powerhouse parliament. name three. >> it's -- it's a simple uestion. [overlapping speakers] >> what you've got to offer is a promise for a corporation tax. starbucks and amazon.

where are they? >> i've told you, be part of the united kippingdom, the advantage of creating jobs in the future. >> that wasn't -- [overlapping speakers]. >> what we have found out, there's 100,000 children faced with poverty, 100,000 people with disability. they're going to spend 4 billion a year on [inaudible] and you can't name three job creating -- [applause] >> and let's recommend -- >> don't tell me what slap [overlapping speakers] >> your time is up so that is the end of our cross-examination section thanks to both of you for that. one of the striking things about this referendum campaign is how many people have become actively engaged in the discussion about scotland's future. predicted to be 80% or even higher in the vote.

living rooms and offices are alive with the noise of this great debate. >> everyone should be voting. it's very important decision to make. >> i think this is an absolutely delightful point. >> i think it's important everybody should do it. >> it's so important, no matter what your views are, yes, or no, this is a long time -- a long time -- lifetime opportunity to vote. >> look at our system, the political system, what we need and really understand how this country works. and what i want. >> this could be either the greatest moment in history of scotland or the biggest downfall. >> i'm an artist. >> my name is paula and i'm an advisory. >> i work for scottish natural heritage. >> i'm a --

>> the referendum to me should be an opportunity to work out what sort of country wants to live in and what sort of society we want to live in and the impact on employment. >> it is essential and we make sure that our culture and heritage continues, whoever wins. >> do you want the same thing? >> i'm scottish, not wearing a kilti, but i -- >> what's going to happen to us in the future. >> we'll be the ones who will be trying to obtain mortgages. we'll be starting our careers and who will be trying to start up families. it will be historic. >> it's not something we can overcome in the next five or ten years. something might change your mind. >> i'm a great believer in democracy and it's wonderful

that everyone can vote. it's a choice. >> once and for all, it will be settled by the referendum. >> two sections still to come. we're going to look at what happened after the referendum on september the 18th. first we're going to look at scotland's place in the world. take another question from brian connolly. brian connolly. >> i'd like to ask what's going title n when the scott [inaudible] the jobs, people, housing after it's gone? >> alex. >> quite identify that the policy of the s.m.p. will be -- going to be the first election for an independent scotland, to remove try dent from scotland. a large number of jobs. the reports over the years which

have indicated that -- the university published them, for example. any other expenditure than wasting billions on weapons of mass destruction. we have responsibilities which is why we've identified as the headquarters function of the scottish defense forces. that's the policy, a policy which renufse nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction from scotland because they're a waste of money as well as totally morally wrong. >> in a few years time there will be about just over 8,000 jobs employed, not just in relation to try dent but also because it's due to become the

.k. center for the submarine >> i think we can ill afford to lose another 8,000 jobs from the west of scotland. remember there are other jobs, supply jobs, that are associated with that. never mind the cost of moving it. i also -- i understand why people might feel very strongly or be against try dent, but simply to put them down the coast to england won't be any les nuclear missiles, it won't reduce the amount of nuclear missiles. i think we should suggest that a smaller defense force would require 8,000 jobs in one place. i just think it is the wrong thing to do both in military terms but also in terms of jobs. we cannot afford to lose 8,000 jobs. it would be a massive blow to

the west of scotland. he question is about jobs. alex, you talked about a 10-year transition to defense in scotland and in independent scotland. w long would it be before it has as many people as it would have if we belonged to scotland. >> obviously, we don't -- we accept try dent can't be moved immediately. we're giving a 5.5-year time span for the removal. the naval has to build up defense forces. it will do things. it will be the headquarters of the scottish defense force. >> what is the employment that equivalent to what is proposed? >> onshore jobs, then it's going to be very substantial indeed. it's also going to be considerable, because currently

we have no major ships at all. obviously we should have ships to defend our oil installations, to fulfill our responsibilities to the north atlantic. so between the ships and the defense headquarters, over a period of time -- >> how long would it take for replacement? >> we look at ten years to build up scottish defense force? equally it's 5.5 years for removal of the try dent submarine. >> people might make a choice, i think a very sensible choice. it would be sensible not to proceed with the next generation of try dent submarines. it might be sensible not to spend 100 billion pounds over the next 40 years dd

>> to spend 3665 million pounds to move trident and leave 7,000 people without jobs plus the organization to take these people in. >> you're not reassured the job would be replaced by new jobs in the scottish defense force? >> certainly not. >> on the other side in the middle, a gentleman with if wrist band. yes, you >> government removal of trident would open up the area to oil exploration and drilling. surely that would go toward replacing any jobs that were lost by the trident. >> the conservative institute which is a respected think tank says that it is possible to move

trident but it would take until 2028 to do so safely. that's, what, eight years after your proposed timetable, alex. >> glen, they actually argued that to move trident it would be arguable in the 5.5 years. but the establishment would take longer. they said you cue move trident in that time scale. i think 5 and a half years is a reasonable time. >> i'm not arguing that. i'm just saying what the institute said. i think scotland is a country of 5.25 million people. it's ludicrous to suggest that we should have europe's largest concentration of weapons of mass destruction and it's equally ludicrous to argue that it's going to generate more jobs,

because they're hugely capital intensive, it's after all, an american weapons system in the first place and any conventional forces will generate more jobs than nuclear jobs ever could. >> ok. >> we're going to waste our share of 100 billion pounds, so i can say a hundred things. don't waste money on nuclear weapons. >> i can understand that. >> there are people who believe that we should have no part in nuclear weapons. i can't then understand the logic to say we'll join nato, which is a nuclear alliance. it doesn't make any sense. in relation to the costs and the logistics. yes, the experts have said it could take till 2028 to move it, which could be very expensive and take a long time. there are 8,000 jobs at stake

here. they're not all nuclear. the trident system, but other submarines -- the time will come a -- [inaudible]. on top of that there's a risk to the royal naval work. the royal navy does not build warships. huge jobs and expertise, which i'm not prepared for. >> your labor colleague, a former secretary general of nato has said scottish independence would be cataclysmic because it would force the rest of the united kingdom to unilaterally disarm itself of nuclear weapons. do you share that view? >> i think the rest of the united kingsdom, if it had to remove the nuclear missiles, that is what would happen. i think there is a greater -- the greater concern is the disruption that takes place on the uncertainty -- he's talking about scottish defense force,

frankly, they've not set out any coherent vision of what it would look like. they're talking about spending rather less on it. as for the trident -- you can't spend money you haven't actually got. [applause] a well, trident -- it is bonus for scotland. >> it's nothing like -- to compare a major resource like oil and gas with weapons of mass destruction. there are many points, alistair. >> how on earth would -- how on earth do you say 15% of your tax evenue is a bonus? >> you may want independence at any price. i think the rest of us think that what you're doing is try to

make out that you can spend money over and over again. >> what is the fact? let me pick up on one issue. >> the united kingdom says it's not planning to move tried ent. it has know plans. do you believe in that? >> yes. find out what the will of the scottish people is. if scotland votes for independence, that is what is going to happen. there's no going back. that's what will happen. hat's why the decision is so revoke sble -- irrevocable. our eyes wide open, no fingers crossed, no guesswork. we've got to be absolutely sure what we're doing. there's no mandate to do that know. that's what eve got to decide. we're scots. >> the u.k. cabinet, someone said, it was grateful that the u.c. government had made any

planning for a refuse -- the referendum was consented -- agreed between the u.k. government and the scottish government. we had plans from the u.k. government. the lf will of the scottish .eople may be >> i want to -- despite the fact that the royal services institute reckon it will take at least 2028 to remove all the weapons, which is your policy, are you saying you're prepared to negotiate on that point? >> i think 5.5 years is a very reasonable time period to offer, as we've done in the white paper. our objective is to rid scotland of nuclear weapons. >> it's not enough time, snit >> that -- to have -- to be a member of nato and not be a nuclear country. the current secretary general is a resident of deny mark.

the next inspector general of nato -- [overlapping speakers] >> all right. we're going to move on to our final section on what happens after the referendum vote. our next question is submitted by e-mail. it comes from craig lister, who's saying, this in his view has been a very divisive campaign for the scottish population generally. he said after this vote, how will yes and no voters react to each other. alistair darling. >> well, if someone asked me six months ago, has this campaign been divisive and will it be difficult afterwards, i would say no not at all. it's like an election. people have their differences and that's it.

it has got rather more heated in the last few weeks. that's not surprising, somele say, because both sides are passionate about what we believe in. i think it's important that whatever the result, both sides have to accept it. one side is going to be disappointed, yes. but we have to accept it. i hope that people do reject independence and i hope people will work together to build a better and a stronger affair of scotland. equally, if i lose and he wins, i have to accept that that's it, it's irrevocable, we're not going back. it's not as if this is just for politicians. it's frankly for all of us. after what's been the longest election campaign, the longest i've experienced, we've got to remember the next morning, we've got to get on with the things that make a difference to people in scotland. we should look at the problems we have in the health service, in ed cathes, in transport, issues of social justice. they all need attending to and

we all need to work closely together. i hope we'll do that >> and i say -- i agree with what alistair has just said there. i don't think it's about the campaign. i think this has been the most extraordinary, energizing campaign in scottish history. whoever thought about voting for political parties, i think we're heading to percentage, 80%. this is a hangully exciting time for scotland. i think alistair has a good point is in the aftermath, because it's an obligation to bring scotland together. but it's -- whatever the result we're going to have to bring scotland together. i'm pledging that if it's a yes street i accept the obligation to have that 18 months of negotiation between the referendum and independence, not just involving the scottish national party but all the best

talents of scotland as part of scotland's noting team to get the best possible end for scotland in the negotiations. if alistair was available, i'd be happy to invite him to join that negotiating team because once the refuse remember come is over, it's a matter of keeping scotland. that's what we need. >> yes, in the front row. what happens after the vote. >> you mentioned w50ed have a turnout of about 80%. how do we make sure people stay interested in application regardless of the outcome. >> we'll come back to you. can alistair darling tell us what further bheel campaigning

for in scotland? >> ok. the gentleman here. >> a lot of the points have focused on the rest and not the benefit of the union. there's no strong case to be made for me to vote no in the union. >> ok. gentleman just behind you. >> throughout this night mr. darling's very kean to stress the government shouldn't be relying on its oil. yet your government took our country scotland into an illegal war for oil and scottish men and women died for that. >> ok. thank you. >> another point from the other side of the isle there. lady with the glasses, yes. >> the fundamental difference is yes, campaigners are fighting passionately for the future of scotland. alistair darling and others are fighting passionately for the jobs. [applause] >> alistair darling, go ahead.

>> let me deal with that. i suspect to the lady who last spoke, i'm not going to win you over, because i think you're fairly committed on the other side. this isn't about me or him. it's about our children and about the generations that come out of that, which is why we need to make the decision. that's why we need to make sure we make the right decision on september the 18th. can i take up the point made by the gentleman there? i'm passionate about the case first in the united kingdom because of the jocks, the opportunities, the security -- >> i thought there was some great questions. if i could address this gentleman's question how do we sustain that engagement? i think one possibility for that is that the formation of a nstitution for an ind pent scoled. >> ok. thank you. >> our final statement. the opposing statement. we have to save a few seconds for those.

approaching the end of this evening's debate. we've got time for closing remarks from each of your speakers. >> the decision we make in three weeks time will define this generation and also the future of the nation. few societies anywhere have secured this opportunity to vote themselves into independence. this is an opportunity peace flit at the blolt box. it's an tchuent may not come our way again so when we post that blot in the next few -- ballot in the next few days we'll be taking the future of our country into our hands. the opportunity as an ind went country and the means of taking advantage of it will challenge us as an independent country. we've got to rise to need challenges to solve them. it has absolutely nothing positive to say about the future of this country. in reality, there's only one

thing we can guarantee and this is what we can garn -- a yes scrote guarantee. an independent scoled will get the government that we vote for. the choice that the people of scotland make will be reflected in policy. that means the policies and position of scoled will be laced in scottish hands. this referendum is about the future of scotland. it's about believing is that we can govern ourselves better than anybody else can. we don't need to rise and be a nation again. we only have to vote to believe in ourselves. >> ok. >> this is our time, our moment. let's seize it with both hans. [applause] >> ok. and lisa hear from alistair darling. no country can compare to

what scotland has done, our successes, the invention of engineering, of medicine, scotland gave the world the age of enlightment. we could go it alone but i don't believe we'd be as successful as scotland would be as part of the yunalted kingdom. i believe we'll do better and prosper by building on our strength in scodland as well as eing a larger part of the u.k. any starting point is currency, money. just as every household depends upon money, an uncertainty about currency can bring a country to its knees. i know some are thinking about giving independence a chance. but when we can't be told about the currency, i don't think that can be trusted. i'm hearing stories about the national health service, i think needs contempt.

i still haven't heard straight youers to a simple question and i don't need to know what the plan b is, he says. well, yes, we do. we do not need to di vied these islands into separate states in order to have our scottish identity. i say that we all have no option other than to say plightly, respectfully, but firmly, no thanks to independence. ok. >> so that is now the end of our time. all that remains is for me to thank alistair darling and alex hammond, to thank our audience in glasgow and to thank you for being with us at this debate tonight. from all of us here, good night.

[applause] >> next, remarks by former president jimmy carter at the islamic society of north america. after that, a discussion on terror threats to the u.s. and another chance to see the bbc scotland debate on the independence referendum. >> on the next washington journal, commentary editor phillip klein discusses president obama's foreign and domestic policy challenges. the up coming midterm elections.