should leave the eu or should we want tohe eu but transfer powers back to the member states. over what that says to us for scotland, the majority want to be in the european union. yes and no voters both want to stay within want to do it for a more pragmatic reason not because of some inherent passion for europe which is sometimes, essentially continental media, try to put trey scotland as. -- try to portray scotland as. a similar issue that has gotten a lot of traction and strategy wasntly in the tv debates the currency issue. the yes side said scotland would definitely be able to continue to use the pound because it's in the interest of everyone.

no said we would not be able to use the pound. things are about as far away from each other as possible. for the scottish elect to read, the polls did not shift towards no. even among those who want independence, 77% would like to keep the pound. dividesin an issue that the voters. what currency do you think scotland would use if it became independent? like thehey would pound. think they would get to use the pound. you think they would like it and cannot get it would more likely to vote no but a are not. moving on this issue very much. the core reason is they simply

do not believe either side. the majority of people think that george osburn and the no side want the negotiations are her words they also do not believe alex hammond. people are not acting on things that they think are completely uncertain. that is why this has not moved people when the interventions were made. weapons, the other big issue that would have to be negotiated with the united kingdom it is the nuclear weapons are based near glasgow where nuclear submarines are based and were several of them always are. yes campaign has been advocating strongly for the removal of nuclear weapons from scottish soil. public opinion again is not as clearly divided on this.

quite comfortable with the nuclear weapons staying if the u.k. government paid a fee. that's not exactly how we asked the question but that's how i felt we could read it. here is the split on whether people agree that britain's nuclear weapons submarines continue to stay. there are more who say it should stay. the 35% on the other side but that is far from a perfect relationship. even among the yes voters, it's a substantial group. not opposey do nuclear weapons so this is far from a perfect relationship. ands an issue that matters there are some parts that really complain about this more than anything else but it is not

decisive for the majority of the elect to. that's the big overview. -- majority of the elect ar torate. localg at democracy and participation be on the referendum itself, who was going to vote in this referendum? the simple answer is a lot of people. voting turnout is not particularly high. in the last westminster day election, the last scottish parliament election it was just over 50%. report that the polls higher levels but the attitude survey only predicted about 60%. the scottish attitude is pretty close to these results. in the survey conducted may to

july, we had three quarters he the ally said 87% who were likely to vote. there is no precedent in u.k. politics that would indicate any such turnout. some of the recent polls are indicating up to 80% turnout. all groups, yes, no, undecided. those whodeds are not have no interest in voting. is a slight preponderance to yes. they have a slightly higher hood of voting. -- likelihood of voting. if we're looking at a 47-50 three split, you know what that means. say, the actual

vote results is not just a function of the polls but the views and voter turnout. it matters but it's not massive. really crucial is this referendum has activated voters that usually do not take part. as an example to illustrate this. voting turnout by age. the youngest age group had 30% in the oldest had 80% turnout. that is a massive gap. that is what we get from the survey for the likelihood of turning out by age group. we hardly have any gradient. all. it is much narrower than it was before. we find this range of socioeconomic variables. gaps are not completely closed in turnout but there narrowed substantially. socioeconomicr

class are more likely to turn up than usual. who are generally less politically interested are more likely to turn out. the gap is much lower. in people not associated with any political party more likely to turn out. we have a lot of people participating are usually don't are dissipated. betweenate it might be half a million people who do not vote who suddenly vote and it makes it hard to predict what they're going to do. these are the groups that are traditionally underrepresented. you wait about a political population whose behavior you do not really understand? it's very hard to say which of the polling institutes are getting it right. it's really difficult to assess that.

this is from the survey. we still had 33% undecided. that sounds like a lot but it depends how you ask the question. a lot of polls only get 10% undecided. what would you do right now? and then you only get 10% undecided back in april or may because people would say that is where they are leading right now. haven't you made your mind up completely? 25%.till get up to then about half of the people have a leanings to either yes or no. on the survey a few months ago it was evenly split. polls havecent showed that the movement from and that isstronger how it is explained. many undecideds have moved to yes over the last few months. there's a group that does not indicate any particularly

leaning. genuinely undecided people who or those who do not want to disclose what they will do. 10%.is now about you may say that's the group that's not going to vote. again, about 70% of that group indicated that they will vote. we still have 67% of the electorate of home we do not know what they will do. even with all the information in the narrowing of the polls, is a small group of people where we do not know what they will do. , we areall go yes clearly over 50%. it is very unlikely they will all go in the same direction. there is a degree of uncertainty that we cannot yet rid of. polls are never predictions. if it is 40%-60%, were the polls wrong? it could be the group went into it.

it's not very probable. would they be wrong if we got 55%? it's not very probable given what we have right now. these are the outcome margins but if we narrow that looking at a range between 44% and 52%, that seems quite probable based on the current results. i don't want to make a guess on what happens referendum day because there is a degree of uncertainty. uncertaintyegree of that we simply cannot get rid of them that is normal. just briefly to say men are more likely to have made up their mind on the referendum and the party affiliates least likely to our made up their mind labor rim scottish party identifiers. there is a huge margin of error so take that with a note of caution because there are very few liberal democrat identifiers in scotland at the moment in

people with my political interest to have more knowledge of the referendum man think it influences their life more are more likely to have made up their minds more. please vote. people whoery few say this will not affect their life. while the percentage is quite high, very few people fall into that group. matter is age, occupation, or class. it is not higher from evil in semi-routine occupations. the final five minutes and i will have stuck to 40 minutes. do the been able to survey in 2013 in april and may. first of all, the youngest voters are not reticular lease the notion of independence. in 2014, we only had 28% yes many undecideds were taken out of the age group which was lower

than the lowest yes poll. to 30 1%have been up obviously. i completely agree knowledge the error margin. had artie 6% yes votes so it has gone up. it is lower than the average population for the youngest voters. the political interest is not lower than the interest for adults. interests and scottish social attitudes you know what we see is the distribution looks fairly similar. young people at least have the political interest. as a small group with no interest at all but a similar group with adults, there are some young people who really don't care. yes, in very small group that you also have a small group of adults who do not care.

voting turnout, remember the low levels i showed you earlier for the lowest age group. amongst those underage 18 eligible to vote come a 72% with a further 15% that indicate they do not know yet. only 12% said they are unlikely to vote. asked before any previous election you would have had the majority in the unlikely to vote through. -- group. gosh, yes. i will correct it before we upload this. thank you for spotting map area slightly embarrassing but i will correct it before we move on. we have 72% that's a rather likely or very likely. thank you.

factor, and iive will sound like a broken record here, is the economy. nearly all the young people says the economy will do better in nearly all think it will do worse who will be voting no. explain that they are somewhat less likely than the adults to vote yes? why is the vote higher among them if it is actually fairly similar? identity is not the top priority but it does matter to some extent. favorew young people .ritishness over scottishand -- scottishness. less likely to

prioritize their identity. that translates further to this trend of the beyond borders, last prioritization within one alsof borders translating to the european union. 55% of adults say we should either leave the eu or reduce their power. for the young people that's only 27%. they're already very different of those with a higher likelihood of saying to reduce their powers. that makes sense. this makes sense generationally. generation --irst and i will talk about this -- they're the first to grow up growing up not knowing non-networked computers. their parents probably order online and they use the

internet to buy airline tickets. the first time they went to a connectedhat now was to an internet, first on the a moment. browser was this is a generation shift where national identity still matters but those last reorganizing one over the other. i'm scottish, british, and the identify asctually european has gone up as well. it is still in relatively small percentage but larger than the adult. that is just the overview. thank you very much for listening, 40 minutes for a lot givesures, but i hope it you a lot of starting points for interesting questions and discussions. [applause] you demonstrated that the

economy matters. [laughter] let me just clarify one thing on methodology. the polls,ed that the scottish social attitudes of the face to face, among the other polls, were some of them conducted by telephone? >> there are six main polling institutes. four of them use large internet polling and do border sampling within. we have one institute that does random digit dialing which i have to be fair, a pretty good method because we still have 80% landline penetration in scotland. .e do telephone sampling educationfor parental as a proxy and got a quite good distribution there. it works relatively well but

online polling has strong biases. half asle are only likely to take part. they do not like taking part of any survey. there is one that uses a method that the others abandoned over the 1990 two westminster election because so many of them got it so wrong with that method. a quarter face to face sampling. >> interesting. thank you for that further proof of clarification. moved to ourow charity scottish and celtic row gram here but he's also an economist so i think he's a bit torn where he would stand if he had a vote. >> i would lead to thank you for

some very stimulating discussion withow they surprised where their intentions seemed to be. number one is thinking about the eu more broadly thinking about the collapse of so many empires yet there are still bits of the empire left. catelans,e basques, should the eu think about a pan-eu policy to allow for while stillnomy staying within the eu? the second has to do with the pound. decidet scottland to dollar-ize as panama has done?

this does to american-style politics and it's an enormous pleasure to hear this that had been more thoroughly polled than the americans are used to. the get out the vote, is there a with eachted system party identifying likely voters going to get them to the polls? great questions. i will start with the first one. , i simplified the european issue. you could do a talk just on the european question, obviously, and the political views and so on. that's a strong interest. we do a lot of briefings in scotland on this. the spanish consulate is always there and a lot of catalog groups are always there surprisingly.

there are the reemphasis and that is probably the other direction that would give people the feeling that the eu would secure the regional interest at the moment area you are absolutely right. if the eu would like to make context,levant in this that is where they could be a moderator. i do also want to say in relation to the scottish context of there is a strong difference between different nationalist and separatist movements. has not beenone emphasized in terms of cultural differences. when you talk about cultural autonomy, it is not unimportant. it is very much about self-governance and economic resources, inequality should it,.

it is much about this than national identity or language. clearly there was a language element that comes into it which is less important. if you poll in catalonia, you'll .ee a stronger correlation i do think the scottish case is somewhat a friend. one where the process has been agreed with the u.k. government. the u.k. toings for do to invoke itself in terms of moderation function, i would say. i do think we have to be careful to not conclude too much from the scottish to the other context because there are some differences. the scottish government had commissioned an independent commission with several people.

with commissions, you always ask who they picked. he critiqued u.k. government policy in previous years. an independent commission that looked at the different options and they suggested the currency union is the best option. also the favored option in the polls, obviously. i will leave others to comment on that. they also came up with other options. ion is evaluated as a higher risk of not having control because not having a central bank. say howe others who would that do on the markets? it is very clear if after independence the u.k. government, where they would be, did not negotiate which would have to, with another option. the scottish first minister has been saying they consider it to

simply continue using the pound, sterlingization, but scotland would not take his share of the debt of the u.k. which is one of those fights. he said it will not come to this. issues thatof those will know it's colin becomes independent afterwards. it will be on top of the negotiation process. thing about this referendum is that it is not much about political party. some of the debate is. they are not voting for political party. this is one of the reasons why it's easier to mobilize people. you can go to town hall meetings basically every day and villages, towns. the concept had pretty much died before.

you had civic events, school events, everything. they are very good at mobilizing. the yes campaign is a bit better. there has been a lot of door-to-door campaigning. impact onremendous young people. first-time voter registration is close to 80%. normally you would never get that. exact expecting what the figure is -- i do not know. we can be confident that it will be higher because there has been such a strong emphasis. back. gentleman in the could you identify yourself and wait for the microphone? thank you. john, chief local correspondent -- political correspondent for

newsmax. ,ou mentioned earlier catalania, the flemish, other breakups that could the in the works and fueled by a vote for independence. is there any evidence vladimir putin is looking closely at the results of scotland and could use it as a justification for crimea leaving ukraine or for the new state that he talks about? second question, what would happen to the members of the house of commons and the house ?f lords who come from scotland would this have any impact on the british elections scheduled for 2015? >> i don't remember whether it

was food and or another populist , scotlande said, look is doing it, why can't we? i have not heard much. scotland doeswhat would stop what russia is doing at the moment. there is obviously a fundamental difference in them the scottish independence referendum happens on an agreement between the elected government of scotland and the elected government of the united kingdom. a mutually agreed system clearly by democratically elected government. argument were invoked, it would be fairly easy to say why. the second question is really interesting. since the polls narrowed, this has been discussed more and more in english newspapers. if scotland became independent it would not just a strong for

scotland but the rest of the u.k.. the scottish government said it would take about 18 months to negotiate independence that includes negotiating entering the european union and nato. the most sympathetic habit -- academic commentators say it is very ambitious. most people say it's probably not. comment on the feasibility. that's not my area of expertise. technically, scotland will remain part of the united kingdom. around may there would be elections to the house of commons that would see elections. they have to as long as scotland as part of the u.k. that causes the first issue. all of the position parties and government parties in westminster have promised

.urther devolution that brings several to say if they have so many things they can decide themselves about, how about the policies that only affect england of that there are are currently voting on in westminster? a lot of people are talking about it. it will have immediate traction on a no vote and it will become an issue. there would be two types of voting in westminster. the other alternative would be an english parliament but that is barely unlikely -- very unlikely. the other big thing obviously is what will happen on independence day.

what it means is that it will result in an effect that the government loses what they needed for the majority. wouldn't have to resign? oh would there be a new coalition? would there be new elections? -- veryd to protect hard to predict. it depends what party is in government and how strong the majority is. of a no vote,ent we will have a lot of debate on constitutional arrangements within the u.k. that will follow. i want to colin william hill -- call on william hill. a fellow here. first a comment. perhaps the scottish referendum

could serve as an inspiration to vladimir putin and some of his colleagues for similar referendum in chechnya and other units in the northern caucuses. ukraine is not the only unit or .tate that has experience as for scotland, i'm curious in perhaps you have it or perhaps you do not, on who votes and who does not and whether there are splits. there are presumably a certain number that will work elsewhere in the u.k. but have the right to vote in scotland. are there geographical divisions? the differences in political preferences between edinburgh and glasgow, something like that

. i'm just wondering if anything shows up within scotland. with cry crucial is the franchise used for the vote is the same used for the scottish parliament. otherwise you would have many debates. the franchise has been agreed on political culture in scotland for a long time so it's not too contested which is good. scotlandwho listed the is a permanent residents, citizen, qualifying commonwealth citizen gets a vote. i'm german and the accent never goes away. [laughter] i have residency in scotland. i've been living there for five years. you do not have to live there a scotng, but if you are who has moved to england you don't get the phone. at the franchise that is the same for the british parliament. some people don't like that, but contested.jorly

it is an agreed franchise. that's the voting franchise. the only change was moving the voting age to 16 but that is with party consensus. geographicale difference. glasgow is slightly higher. the crucial thing is most of the can behical things explained in differences in the makeup of the population in those particular areas. people who live in more socially

deprived circumstances have a higher likelihood of voting yes. the gaps have narrowed a little bit. fashion a higher with area with higher deprivation, you have a city or counsel with more socially deprived residents, you will have a higher yes vote. most of the geographical is explained by differences in these differences in the regions. >> the gentleman here. she's coming with the mic. kern, happily retired. what is the general state of the scottish economy now as contrasted with the state of the english economy? those one or the other feel they are being pulled down by the ther particularly with scots looking at england and they see, i imagine, a lot more emigration there than has

reached scotland yet. inflectionmographic of england, scotland, is that a factor here? obviously, i will talk about the immigration point. there are fewer people born outside the you needed -- outside of the united kingdom. immigration has increased quite tremendously particularly with emigration from central and eastern europe with the new eu member states. that is one thing we know. in european migration to the u.k., it is largely migration of skilled workers. roles sof traditional on and so forth.

there were not enough people in scotland. needs migration because they are more rapidly aging over the next few decades. thereby it is a demographic problem in terms of pension funding. therefore the smp clearly states they have more emigration policy that has currently started to restrict immigration more heavily. at least if it is based on , althoughationalism attitudes toward immigration more attitude has toward it than england. relation to the economy, a lot of people in england will fight to use a figure that public spending per capita in scotland is higher than in the

rest of the u.k.. a lot of people in scotland will cite figures to you that show contribution to the assets of the united kingdom is greater than its share of the population as well though. it's quite a long-standing debate. , scotland hasking a relatively healthy economy and its facing certain problems that a lot of other postindustrial countries are facing as well. if scotland becomes independent, there are loads of scenarios. they depend on 15 or 20 variables and it's very difficult to say how it pans out . the middle of those scenarios effect of lycée scotland would be able to function as an independent country would not be disastrous but it would not be the land of milk and honey. some things proposed on giving

increasing welfare and reducing taxes that is probably not possible. it is probably somewhere in the middle. it depends on certain things like the oil price but it also depends on, for example, scotland has a very strong financial sector. it number oh is the second-largest, larger than manchester or birmingham, for example. those banks and insurance is have shone operations. some might consider moving to england if they do that. others say they might invest more in scotland if it becomes more independent. it's very hard to assess. there are certain risks and opportunities and it depends on external influences, oil price development, the big debate emma how much oil is in the north sea? you have conflict in views. if you take the average on all it basically would be

probably a country that would have the same sort of problems that a lot of others have. if you want to increase welfare, you need to either increase taxes or cut something else. sound vague here. i know that. if you read all of the different economic evaluations, you have to be somewhat vague because their air substantial risks and opportunities coming into it. the majority of the oil that is currently contributing to the u.k., the oil revenues are over 90% in scottish water. >> the gentleman here in the blue shirt. >> gerald chandler. is this on? can you tell us if you have data on things you have not talked about? how many scots live in england? are they in favor of independence? how many british

-english-scottish mixed marriages are there? research group from wales just did a survey of the english and i'm sure there is a veritable in there that looks at this but i have not had the time. i only looked of the headline figures. i have not looked at that day to get. -- that data yet. english-born in scotland, you will not be surprised that the majority intend to vote no. group there asge well. i cannot talk about the english in more detail but if you want i can give you the reference to the team that did the research on my group. gentleman in the corner, in the back. perhaps an unfair question -- my name is ethan.

thomastioned unsurprisingly, that what happens in scotland is unlikely to have any great influence in russia. what of the reverse? in russia,ent events syria, iraq, the recent spate of, for want of a better term very bad things, is this likely politicalany conservativism or do we really just not have enough data to say? >> it's a really good question. say isly, what you might the majority of scots are in favor of either independence or devolution. that is over 60% likely the option and most of those who say independence is their first option him and nearly everyone would then vote for further devolution then surprisingly. the majority of scots if you ask them right now still would say

foreign affairs and defense are best done by the u.k.. i think it's a really valid question. what we have seen over the last few weeks is obviously that the polls if anything have shown a shift to an while we have seen intensification of conflict and you crane but also other anflict that britain has stake in with iraq, for example. that does not mean, however, that it does not matter for peoples of valuation but it might matter to those people who already have decided to vote no because they thought it was insecure. this is why i think we have quite a lot of people in the middle -- i'm sorry, one more jump year, the people who are undecided right now must have accepted there is a degree of uncertainty. go withe undecided you

the status quo, but that might be true for two quick decision but if you've been thinking about it for two years, most people for whom any uncertainty is a problem, they will have already decided by and large to go to know. a large group of them will already be no. underof people will say no circumstances do i think i want scotland to just defend quite, i want the powerful u.k. as my defender. most of them are already no. they might see their views reaffirmed. the currency issue is a similar thing. they said it made them more likely to vote no or yes although the majority people who said that were those already who indicated they would vote yes or no. is cause somet do people to solidify their views on this. it does not seem to be shifting more people to this. that's as far as i would go from what we can see in the data.

>> the gentleman with the camera in the back. with armyournalist television. similar situation in armenia but the conflict has not evolved yet. if people vote yes on september 18, do you think it becomes a international community, and the human member, will they pursue a policy of sympathy toward these kind of movements in the caucuses or elsewhere? i will do an exception for beaine because they seem to united against russia in terms of the train, but how about other similar conflicts? a quick second question would be

onut the agreement independence from the result it will have on september 18. do you think the agreement in the test will be more negotiable and set up a precedent for other similar conflicts? succeede who want to can point to the agreement and say that they were more negotiable, so why should azerbaijan or georgia not do the same? >> i will not comment on any particular case just as i do not have enough knowledge on other specific cases. i think it will be a very .ifficult situation they don't want to look hypocritical. but they do want to say that the self-determination of people is voicesive thing and some

of the scottish nationals think that. at the same time, they will want to join the european union, nato . in that, i said on several occasions that they're quite pragmatic. politicians are also fairly pragmatic and some of the valuations and there might be some conflict there. i have a distinct feeling that in general rhetoric on the ward in an contentious circumstances they might be very supportive but on things where it would basically hinder their ability to integrate some of those things, that would partially depend on who the government of an independent scotland would be. the political landscape is going to change and it's very likely you would see a stronger conservative vote or whatever center-right party you would have, it would not he associated with westminster english conservatives. the potential is there if you

look at public attitudes. there are views that align quite closely with conservative policies. if you get a different government, you might have different policies. it's very different -- difficult to predict. they use that as an argument in terms because the key thing is they say if everything works out how it looks at the moment in the case that scotland became independent, it would look like a peaceful transition, hopefully. difference that it is not seen as conflict. very few have said that the political will is oppressed at the moment. the u.k. government agreed to the referendum. that's one of those key things that comes into it. will be an argument in terms where they might want to differentiate themselves. i'm staying think again because it would depend on context, external influences, and which

parties would be forming the scottish government. that's quite a difficult one. >> the lady here. >> thanks very much. with policy connections international. to your to go back issue about the economy being number one. you mentioned that the yes vote is increasing in the most resident issue for people is that the economy would be better after independence. is there anything in particular that has convinced more people to think that way? i notice businesses have weighed in on both sides of the debate. there seem to be more companies on the yes list than the no letter. is that a factor? or is something else persuading people that the economy could do better?

there were two letters. -->> there were two letters. the yes list has more companies but there are also smaller. but mainlying different types. what's really interesting, actually is compared to 2013, overall and the scottish social attitudes survey, we had fewer people that bought the economy would be better. but remember what i showed. there was a much clearer crystallization. john curtis here because i did not come up with that word but it is crystallizing those who think of the economy would do better, nearly almost yes. it is within that group that nearly everyone is drawn to the yes side but the group has

become slightly smaller compared to 2013. in august, in the polls, it seems to have increased a bit. it showed a big swing to yes and saw a quite substantial increase of people who thought the economy would do better. overall, not substantially more than 2015. it might even be a slightly smaller group, but that group has been convinced kind of to the yes vote. even moret all complicated in the attitude information. processtwo-year-long with a lot of debate on multiple actors coming into this debate. people's attitude formation on this issue is quite surprising. >> thank you very much. as you know, the american

in somewhateighed diplomatically on the no side. i'm wondering if that has had any impact one way or the other or what the attitude is about that. there been any discussion about what sort of special wouldonship with the u.s. be in the event of a yes outcome? remember because it was the day when we had just presented our new research results and we thought we were going to be out in the media today. when the statement was made by president obama, it did not influence the polls. neither in january when commissioner barroso made his statement.

the substantial answer i think what happens about in scotland dominates the decision-making. haveark placated answer we seen from several people who did but if youe polls live in scotland, you know havebly quite well, if you ever been there, it's never very fruitful to try to tell scots from the outside what to do. there is relatively little response to that. it's not that they don't care or that they did not matter but it is not something that people who are basing their views on because the core issues for people seem to be what happens in scotland in the future. those issues were discussed but they are not the ones that people really grabbed onto to make the decision. the lady here.

i'm the next brits who would vote no on the issue if i had the chance. ex-brit. is thiso vote succeeds, the end of the campaign or will it happen again? >> some people have already said it will be the end of the scottish national party as well. a other referenda but i think it is clear what there would be with internal reorganizations, but they would then campaign for the greatest devolution. if you remember before the campaigns really started with the scottish government advocated for was a ballot with two questions, one about devolution and independence.

they insisted on a simple yes-no vote simply because they did not want -- i think the key thing is if people vote for maximum devolution, very unlikely that would not have worked because of the other parties would have advocated as well, they would have been bound by the vote and now there would be negotiations in the event of a no vote. snp would be at the forefront for advocating for further devolution in some agreement would be reached in the next few and i think that it depends on the satisfaction. if you see within the next 10 years people become more satisfied with the settlement and the governments, what we saw earlier the way that people evaluate the relations between scotland and the u.k. depend on the performance of the people who represent them which makes sense. they would be confident about

that and they like it, another run for independence might not be very successful. if there would be growing dissatisfaction, a feeling of being shortchanged, of course there could be another. not within the next few years probably. the only thing that could be in the medium-term and influencing factor would be if there was a on the european union that would be successful and in that context i can imagine at an earlier point in the future that issue would be brought back up. otherwise, it would take quite a while, maybe. how long that would be, i don't know. the question down on the end here. this will be our final question. robert.me is i'm a doctoral student at georgetown. i'm interested more in the

historical reasoning behind some of this. you mentioned a lot of the younger generations are feeling equally british and scottish or less fully scottish and i'm kind of curious. has there been policy changes from the english that have influenced that? or what's going on in scotland perhaps -- you mentioned generation with the internet but are there other factors leading them to feel that way? >> we have seen an increase in being slightly more likely to say equally scottish and british. we have seen the increase in 2012 and we thought the london olympics. if it had been something like this, you would have seen a drop and we did not see another. it does not seem to just be something like the olympic games. then policy in recent years.

careful.re very we've been involved with a lot of schools here. we've done a lot of school work and they are very cautious discussing political issues. based on our research, they are probably too cautious because a lot of young people see schools as a place where they can discuss politics in a neutral setting. were saying they would prefer they did not discuss the referendum even in a neutral way because they are afraid their parents would accuse them of biasing. if anything, they are quite stubborn and don't like to be told what to do. the political confidence grows when they discuss it. scottish schools are doing, anytime there is anything about curricula, for example, there emphasizing scottishness and there's a lot of critical commentary on this.

there is now talk in the u.k. about emphasizing british values and education. what that means in practice is to be seen -- again, education is a fully devolved matter to scotland so it will have little influence. , i wouldhose shifts say they are not so strongly based on political things but more on experience. i would say more research needs to be done. it's quite nice to be at the university where some people have been researching national identity for the last 30 or 40 years so it's a very stimulating place to discuss that issue. our website will have the slides after we make a couple of corrections to get in some likely votes. [laughter] they will be up in a day or so and you can consult them there. join me in thanking our speaker for a very stimulating presentation. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the scottish independence referendum vote is two weeks away, september 18. you'll find more programming on our website, c-span.org. our campaign 2014 coverage continues tonight with a debate between the candidates in the north carolina senate race, incumbent democratic senator kay hagan facing tom tillis. they are neck and neck with poll numbers within the margin of error. here are some of the campaign ads currently running in north carolina. of being disgusted by the news? washington has completely lost touch with working americans. the federal budget is a joke and

senators never pay the price. i'm thom tillis. i've been a paperboy, a short warehouse clerk, and eventually a partner at ibm. they need fewer of the politicians who made this mess. i'm thom tillis and i approve this message. let's make it right. one thing i love about north carolina if anican or democrat, ideal works for middle-class families, i'm all for it. i am so proud that the national journal ranked me the most moderate senator. not too far left, not too far right, just like north carolina. >> kay hagan and tom tillis meet for their first televised debate tonight 7:00 eastern time. watch live here on c-span. matthew olsen, the director of

the national counterterrorism center earlier today talked about the islamic militant group keep it fromrts to posing a threat to western countries. his talk at the brookings institution is about an hour. this past may, a man walked into a jewish museum in belgium and opened fire, killing four people. the suspect, a 29-year-old french national, had recently returned from syria where he fought alongside the islamic state of iraq in the lafond. day, a 22-year-old american from florida blew himself up while detonating a massive truck bomb in a restaurant in northern syria, one frequented by syrian soldiers. the bomb killed dozens. the american suicide bomber was with the al nusra front. the group posted online a video of the attack. weeks , andt two

isil terrorist executed two american journalists who were taken hostage while covering the plight of the syrian people. isil posted these images for the world to see. on behalf of everyone [indiscernible] our thoughts and prayers are of jim foleylies today. taken together, these her thick -- horrific acts of violence highlight why security and intelligence officials across europe and around the world are alarmed about the rise of isil. and the terrorism threat we see emanating from syria and iraq today. threats in the region as well as to the u.s. -- to the west.

the president spoke directly to these concerns, calling isil an immediate threat to iraq and people around the region. likewise, the british prime minister is increasing its threat level, citing information. few minutes talking about the nature of the terrorist threat we see in syria and iraq. i will talk about the challenges we face, but also why isil is not invincible. situationcuss how the in syria and iraq fits into the broader terrorism landscape as i tried to put this into the overall context we see. i will finally touch on the steps to address the threats they pose security. let me thank the brookings institution to death for inviting me to speak. also everything that goes on here at brooking. there is a natural connection mentioned between the work of brookings and the work at ntc --

nt tc. analyzing ther terrorist threat information. we have sent some of our best and brightest here to brookings to serve as fellows. the other thing i would like to say is as a director of -- i talk it is our role to about this and share our insights. this summer, the 9/11 commissioners issued a new report and asked national security leaders to communicate to the public in specific terms about what the threat is and how it is evolving. i see the event as an opportunity to do this and shed a measure of light. there is no doubt the american newsc is gripped with the of the violence we see in iraq. this is completely understandable, particularly in light of the video we have seen

yesterday and a couple of voice ago. isil is a dangerous organization by every measure, extremely dangerous, operating in a chaotic part of the world. it has exploited the conflict in the -- in syria, pleaded tensions in iraq, both to enrich itself in these countries, and it now spans the geographical center of the middle east. the group uses terrorists and insurgents tactics. like an insurgency, it has seized and is trying to govern territory. isil poses a direct and significant threat to us and to iraqi and syrian forces in the region and potentially to us at home. the group's rapid step from the battlefield, it's tactics, it's claimed to be the new ideological leader of the global jihadist movement, these all account for our intense focus on the group. beyond isil, other terrorist networks in syria pose a threat

to us, even as we continue to terrorist organizations across the middle east and much of north africa. i will talk now about how we assess the threat from isil. i will take a few minutes to walk through this. i will begin with the background. i think it is important to start their. a veteran sunni terrorists founded the group in 2004 and pledged his allegiance at the time to bin laden. iraq, targeted u.s. forces, targeted civilians using suicide bombers, car bombs, to pressure the u.s. and other countries to leave iraq and quickly gained a reputation for brutality and tyranny. isil's continued targeting and oppression of sunni civilians in iraq caused a widespread backlash against the group, often referred to as the sunni awakening. a surge in forces as well as iraq he counterterrorism

operations that only denied and led to a sharp decrease. in 2011, the group began to reconstitute itself amiss growing sunni discontent in iraq and the civil war in syria. in 2012, isil conducted an average of 5-10 suicide attacks per month in iraq. by last summer, the number had grown to 30-40 such attacks per month. iraq,gaining strength in it exploited chaos in syria to expand its operations across the border. the group established a front as a cover for its activities in syria. --april last year, it presence in syria under the isil banner. they publicly pledged their allegiance -- their allegiance. year, isil of this

was declared no longer a branch of the group. at the same time, isil accelerated its efforts to overthrow the iraqi government this past january. the group marched from a safe haven in syria across the border in northern iraq, slaughtering thousands of iraqi muslims, sunnis, on its way this june. through battlefield victories, the group gained weapons, equipment, and territory, and isil we think takes in as $1 million per day from oil sales, smuggling, and ransom payments. by late june this past summer, it declared the establishment of .he islamic caliphate three overarching factors, and i rise and about the success of isil. first, isil has asked weighted

the failure of the syrian and iraqi states to maintain control over their more remote regions. assad's brutal treatment of its suppresse, to forcibly the opposition, has acted as a magnet for extremist and foreign fighters. the withdrawal of security forces during military ofagements has left the loss military largely ungoverned there. the group can plan and train and .lot, as well as to coordinate with little or no interference. iso has been able to move personnel supplies. secondly, it has proven to be a fighting force. it's battle strategy is complex and adaptive. terrorist operations, hit and run tactics, military assaults come enabled the group of his rapid gains. tactics mayfield

have helped the group hold and administer territory. sunnis have few alternatives in iraq and syria. the leadership has pushed them to the sidelines of the political process for years, and i so has been recruiting young sunnis to the fight. it views itself as the new leader of the global jihadist movement. it operates the most significant propaganda machine of any extremist group. it disseminates timely and media content on multiple platforms, including social media, all designed with widespread following in the group. to tout itsedia military capabilities, its execution of captured soldiers, and its consecutive number of battlefield victories. the group's supporters have more recently sustained the momentum

on social media by encouraging attacks in the united states and against u.s. interests in retaliation for our airstrikes. it uses propaganda campaign to bring foreign fighters to the group, including many western -- from western countries. qaeda is the dominant voice of influence in the global extremist movement. today, isil has more than 10,000 ,ighters, it controls much crossroads of the middle east area, about the size of the kingdom, and its strategic goal is to establish a caliphate to armed conflict with apostate regimes. those it considers apostates such as iraq, syria, and the united states are at it poses a multifaceted threat to the united states. i will talk about this now in detail. in january, its leaders warned the u.s. will soon be in direct conflict with the group.

there is little doubt isl views the u.s. as a strategic enemy. the threat is most acute in iraq. safe haven and resources their present an immediate and direct threat to america. this includes our embassy in baghdad, our conflict, and americans held hostage by isil. in the region, lebanon, turkey, jordan, isil has the capability to carry out small-scale attacks and threaten americans as a result. but the threat extends beyond the region to the west. it has the potential to use it safe haven to plan a coordinated attack in europe and the united states during the threat became real this past year. also, with the arrest of an individual recently in france, connected to isil and upon his arrest, several explosive

devices were discovered. at this point, we will have no credible information that isil is planning to attack the united states. we know more than 12,000 foreign fighters have flocked to syria in the past three years, including more than 1000 europeans and more than 100 americans. many of the foreign fighters have joined isil ranks. fighters may use these to conduct external attacks. the foreign fighters are likely to gain experience in training and eventually to return to their own country. return to their own country battle hardened. many are likely to possess western passports and travel documents. the fbi has arrested more than half a dozen individuals seeking to travel from u.s. to syria to support isil. we remain mindful of the possibility that an isil sympathizer motivated by online propaganda could conduct attacks

with little or no warning. any threat to the u.s. homeland from these types of extremist is likely to be limited in scope and scale. dire as all of this sounds, from my vantage point, it is important that we keep this threat in perspective and we take a moment to consider it in the context of the overall terrorist landscape. that is certainly part of our responsibility. viewede of isil can be as one man assisted -- of the global jihadist movement in the past several years. we have seen the movement diversify and expand in the aftermath of the upheaval and political chaos since 2010. the threat now comes from a decentralized array of organizations and networks. isl is only one of the groups we are concerned about. al qaeda core continues to support attacking the west and

for now remains the recognized leader of the global jihadist, even as it struggles to mount operations under sustained pressure. veteran al qaeda fighters have traveled from pakistan to take advantage of the permissive operating environment there. they are focused on plotting against the west. al qaeda's official branches in yemen and somalia remain extremely active. we have seen al qaeda at the arabian peninsula repeatedly try to keep down an airline in the u.s., targeting personnel in yemen. he capability to carry out its terrorist attack against the united states. it is now a leader within al qaeda and the group's propaganda continues to resonate outside yemen. it threatens u.s. and western personnel in the region, even

with the losses since 2011. al qaeda has taken advantage of the security vacuum, the flow of weapons across borders to unify north and west africa. unprecedented levels of violence are being carried out in advance of elections that year. here in the united its, last year's bombing at the boston marathon is a sober reminder of the sustained threat we face from self-directed violent extremist. you can see the terrorist threat emanates from a broad area. terrorist networks have exploited the lack of governance and lack of security in these areas. terrorist groups we think are active in at least at length -- at least 11 insurgencies and these groups contribute to insurgencies and exploit the government's ability to fight on multiple fronts. i want to point out identifying these threats is increasingly challenging for us. the groups are adapting tactics

to avoid our intelligence collection. terrorist groups are looking for simpler, smaller scale attacks easier to pull off. lester ats an attack the westgate mall in a row be. -- in nairobi. terrorists are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance or they are moving usinge secure platforms, encryptions, and in some case -- this is a problem for us. to identify and disrupt plots. the point is this. isl has captured our immediate focus. it is only one of the myriad groups that poses a threat to us as a terrorist landscape evolves and becomes increasingly complex and challenging for us. mind, letcontext in

me spend the last minutes talking about the strategy to defeat isil. as formidable as it is as a group, it is not invincible. broad coalition of international partners, we have the tools to defeat isil based on a determined and comprehensive all of government approach. near-term, we are focused on protecting personnel on the ground and in iraq, including staff, while addressing the humanitarian crisis isil has created. our military is taking the fight to isil. we have conducted more than 100 and 20 airstrikes in support of iraqi security forces, and provided the necessary force to allow these forces to regain infrastructure. because of successes of these strikes, isil is moving on and moving territory.

these measures by an iraqi and u.s. forces have revealed isil is vulnerable to coordinated and effective military action. to zapike had begun momentum and gain space for kurdish forces to gain momentum. the u.s. and its allies have provided over one million pounds to survive, including food and water to populations under siege by isil. averteps have helped to humanitarian crisis is -- crisis es.ed -- tracy' humanitarian aid must be part of a broader -- over -- here at home. ofh a clear eyed assessment

the threat isil poses inside and outside the region, we're implementing a comprehensive strategy that calls for a global coalition, using all tools, diplomatic, military, intelligence, law enforcement, to in -- to defeat the group. only the government iraq that is representative of all iraqis will unite the country. we have concentrated on working with iraqis to ensure the new iraqi government stands for all iraqis. this will reduce tensions throughout the region not just iraq and indicates a marginalized sunnis that there is an alternative. >> iraqis have made progress to this goal in recent weeks naming a new prime minister. the strategy requires regional and international partners. some nations will provide military assistance. direct and indirect.

others will provide humanitarian assistance. the effort is underway in iraq where others have joined with us in providing humanitarian aid and military assistance. this week at the nato summit, secretary john kerry and hagel will meet with counterparts to enlist the broadest possible assistance and then both secretaries will travel in the middle east. country can support the horrors perpetrated by isil and no civilized country should shirk its responsibility. a broad international consensus will provide the foundation for a concerted action to achieve a number of objectives. we will continue to take direct action unilaterally with our partners. isil's capacity to wage war and diminished control in iraq and syria. we are continuing our support for iraq moderate and for

syrian opposition. next, we will counter isil's extremist messaging campaign by working with partners to emphasize battlefield successes of our iraqi and kurdish forces and to highlight the atrocity and the grave threat the troop poses to our iraqi sunnis. finally, we will continue to enhance our intelligence collection within the region and will build on an established security measure here at home to combat any threat we see. this includes working to -- to stem the flow here in iraq. our attention is concentrated on the security crises in both iraq and syria and rightly so. and other groups operating in syria threaten our people and our interests in the region and, left unchecked, they will seek to carry out attacks closer to home. no terrorist group is invincible.

the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent syrians and iraqi civilians has shocked and united all civilized people for the barbaric murders of two american journalists and an attack has demonstrated these terrorist threats are not confined to one part of the globe. the president has set -- has said the u.s. will continue to do what ever is necessary to .rotect at home and abroad we work with our partners in the region and allies over the long term to bring peace and security to a chaotic heart of the world. thank you very much gorelick forward our discussion. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> thank you very much for that hystericaland description of the threat that we face today.

you started in belgium. i would like to go back to belgium. i listened to what you said. you are portraying an which hason followers, sympathizers, and some cell structure in europe. if i would compare that to al qaeda in 1999-2000, when we knew it had a pretty well-developed cell structure in europe and asia, and,outheast as we now know, in the united states of america, what i'm hearing from you is we are not past that level of acute threat today but we could be there. is of whereir summary we're standing today? let's that is a useful point of comparison. you are spot on in saying we are certainly not there. isil is not al qaeda pre-9/11.

think we are also not as a country and as a counterterrorism community here, but also across europe, we are not where we were in pre-9/11. we are so much better postured in so many ways to see, detect, stop any type of attack like we saw on 9/11. concern and i highlighted this, the number of europeans who travel to syria. certainly some of them, perhaps many, have joined forces with isil. they're the ones returning home. that is the model we are most concerned about, and it is highlighted by what we saw in the judicial museum in brussels. , possibly acting atits own, possibly acting isil's direction. a smaller scale type of attack, brutal and lethal, but nothing

like a 9/11 scale attack. thought a queue was capable of at that time. that is an important point of comparison. arrows --nd endless hours reading propaganda. also, your intelligence collection. from looking at the propaganda and the whole terror threat to ensure you have, do you have any doubt about their long-term intentions, vis-à-vis both europe and more importantly american homeland? we do spend a lot of time reviewing their propaganda and information we are able to glean that is not part of what is in the open source is, i think yes, there is no doubt in our view that that is have the old really see us. they ultimately see us as a strategic threat and one, as they publicly stated, they will

inevitably confront. i do think at some point in time, allowed to proceed on the path they are on, left unchecked, they would turn their sites more to the west and potentially to the united states. organizationf this is a very mysterious figure. literally meaning he is a descendent of the prophet mohammed. if anything he says is true. do you feel the american intelligence community has a solid handle on who this guy is, where he comes from, what his ideology is, or is this still a work in progress? >> we have a pretty good sense. i do think that your characterization of him as somewhat shadowy is absolutely fair. publicnot struck a

persona in the way others have. their other members of the group that have a large public persona. we spend a fair amount of time in the broader community learning what we possibly can about him. >> do you think he comes from the same ideological bent as our colleague and bin laden? the level of violence, the him in thatuts category. >> i do think he shares that ideology, both in terms of the level of violence and, ultimately, grandiose aspirations he has set forth. so yes, i would put him in the same category. isil has set itself on a path apart from the rest of al qaeda and in part based on their disagreement with the tactics. and the approach. is more about means.

with respect to ends, they share the same ideology. >> to emphasize that isil or isis or whatever you a to call is part of a broader transformation, let's call it al qaeda is him, in the last couple of years. in that context, how worried are ,ou that the old al qaeda core perhaps with new leaders coming in, is poised to view resurrected and research as the united states and nato, who draw forces from afghanistan and pakistan? of seeing anger repeat of what has happened in iraq or al qaeda in iraq? we thought it was, if not destroy, at least on the back foot, resurrecting itself with

al qaeda for or al qaeda core like groups? >> we are obviously vigilant in possibility and working closely with afghan security forces, as well as other partners in the region. to continue to maintain the pressure we have been able to place on al qaeda to ensure that does not happen. i am confident we will take steps necessary to prevent anything like that type of resurgence of al qaeda in that part of the world. >> i will press you a little bit here there is a difference between taking it seriously, and this is notd that the 2014 threat, but the 2017 threat. >> right. it is fair to press me on that

point. part of my job is to be worried about these things. i have all the gray hair that i have and that is why. comforted when i see the work that goes on, so i will go back to that point, that we're going to take the steps we need to take to make sure that whether it is 2014 or 2017, we do not see that type of insurgents. the president made a number of speeches where he has talked about this, and what i talked about in terms of diffusion and decentralization of the threat. we need to be steely eyed about the threat, where it comes up, where it rises to a level of threat to the kind of the u.s., whether our interests in the region or here at home, that we will do whatever is necessary to disrupt and defeat that threat. secretary kerry

and secretary hagel and how going to the middle east after spending the weekend in wales, the question i am constantly asked by people, and you hear it on talk shows everywhere, is, where are our muslim allies? people we fighting these and the common american perception is, many of our allies are taking a lackadaisical approach. most often heard with regard to saudi arabia. anyout compromising intelligence collection activity, how would you characterize how our muslim allies, and you can name names if you want or say they, are working with -- shout out the ones who helped the most and be quiet about this. the countriesows we work so closely with in the

region, and i mentioned areas where i think it begins with a threat. you look at the areas, the countries threatened by the rise of isil. obviously, lebanon, jordan, turkey, and, increasingly, others, saudi arabia. these are countries we are closely allied with and are both openly and less openly, to take on this threat. results ofard to the what is happening at the nato summit and then further diplomatic efforts, more in the purview of the secretary of state and the secretary of defense, to build those partnerships and form this coalition. i think there is every reason to believe based on what is happened so far, that it will coalesce. >> i mentioned in introducing you that you worked on gone, no

-- one, no -- guantánamo. to see american stressed to look like guantánamo prisoners. looking back, how damaging has it been, how damaging is it still today, that the guantánamo facility six years after president obama called for it to be shut is still our overall effort to counter overall efforts? >> there is no doubt that, first, it is important to note our view that there is no group as successful and effective as isl is at using propaganda, particularly using social media. they outpaced any others in how they used the internet to spread their message. as we have seen

in the past, part of that is the guantánamo imagery. that, along with a number of other tools, are things that they turn to, or messages they turn to, to try to spread their message and radicalize others. i do think it is important to say here, there should be no equivalency and we should reject any sense of it between what we and ourhose videos country's policies. i want to make sure that is clear. time, we are working hard in support of the president's goal to" guantanamo. we are with the rest of the community, part of that effort. >> you have been doing this for some time and you mentioned in your talk that not only is the threat transform, but we are transformed. the national counterterrorism , actually set up

derived from an earlier effort, but we do not need to go into chronology and bureaucracy here, to connect the dots. we felt after september 11, we knew after september 11, information was not properly start -- shared. -- at how the nt u.s. government more broadly functions, how would you characterize for americans the level at which we are now connecting the dots, bringing the information together, and really making sure we do not of data slipeces through the >> as they did before september 11? >> that is a soft ball. thank you. i appreciate that. we thing to point out is were, just last week, celebrating our 10th anniversary. we were -- an executive order in august of 2004 and then codified

in the intelligence reform act later that year. , ayears of history relatively young organization. but really reflective of the overall counterterrorism community and the level of collaboration within this community, the level of information sharing, it stands as a model for the rest of the government in how we work. the imperative of 9/11 gave us the momentum to break down barriers to sharing information and we basically have been working that since 2001 and certainly since we were created in 2004. more concretely, there are real examples of the government working together in ways that are hard to imagine. i would point to the captures earlier this year. where the intelligence community, working with military forces, working with the law

enforcement community, these individuals are now facing justice. a longtime al qaeda operative indicted for his role in the bombings,998 embassy and another charged with his role in benghazi. a seamlessxamples of counterterrorism effort where intelligence, military, law enforcement, all working coordinated. all in a way, it is hard to imagine any other country being able to pull off something like that. it is something i am particularly proud of, as we see the small part in supporting that. but again, we are exemplifying the level of collaboration and coordination within the u.s. government counterterrorism community. >> we have given you one chance at a softball so we will go to a hardball. please identify yourself and

make it a question and not a speech. >> thank you. i am from the is -- the atlantic council. two questions. is it possible to defeat or even isis whilely degrade assad remains at least in .ominal control in syria what is the role in i ran -- in iran to help united states defeat what is a mutual threat. thank you. question, it absolutely is, without regards to the question of assad. it is absolutely possible to and defeat isil, particularly over the long run. it will take time. part of that will mean working to secure a political transition

in syria. as long as assad is in that a role with no legitimacy in his own country, we have seen syria is a magnet , which obviously complicates the security picture from our perspective, but provides resources and support for isil, and other groups. part of the broader strategy over the long term is a political transition in syria. respect to the second question, with respect to iran's iraq --iraq, obviously, ironic has interest in that region as well, it is a neighbor. i will not say much more about iran's role.

>> i work for the bbc. i was wondering if you could the a little bit about homegrown president. americans joining the fight in syria. i am particularly wondering about radical preachers, how you're dealing with them now, and whether it is different now. also how you compare it to have the uk's handling the problem. click the u.k. raised its threat level. they have a different system than we do for that particular question. the threat level question. i mentioned we think over 100 americans traveled to syria. of thoseknow how many have joined isil. we think 100 have gone to join syrian opposition and effort. many of those, we think, have joined extremist groups. the united in kingdom is substantially more significant in terms of numbers. the prime minister mentioned as many as 500 in his remarks last

week. the situations are similar. the situation is more pronounced. about foreign fighters traveling to those countries and then returning home. that is largely a consequence of the geographic proximity of the u.k. to syria and the ease with which one can travel there. we're doing a number of things. if he i has a lead on this with causingderstand what is folks in the united states the desire to go to syria. it is part of a broader strategy . we have seen this in the past with individuals desiring to go to places like somalia. certainly, the u.k. has this as well, with the number of individual seeking to go to pakistan and other places.

we work really closely with the u.k. understanding the nature of that radicalization process and the kinds of steps we can take from a law enforcement perspective, to stem that flow. here in the united states, we have tools. the fbi has the lead here. when we see someone who committed a crime, being able to arrest them before they go. >> thank you very much. i write to the mitchell report and i want to come back and ask the flip side of a question --ised polls -- bruce holst bruce posed earlier. back where we were in 9/11, 2001. i want to ask this question. you talked about what the motivating factors of americans joining isil might be.

it possible, and, do we have a way of analyzing, if not measuring, the extent to which inrica's staying in the game these countries? and the so-called collateral damage in particular. isil than it is eradicating? and doing so, multigenerational fo --tigenerational h moats -- multigenerationally? doing have a choice?

-- do we have a choice? >> one of the ways i would answer the question is to refer back to the work that has been done over the last couple of years by the it ministration, by the president, to set our efforts, our direct action legal policy sound with key points that we will take action only when there is a continuing in a ,inute threat to u.s. persons and one that is enduring, that will be in place for the foreseeable future. and that is dedicated to limiting any harm to noncombatants. this is the way we have announced the approach. and that we could hold out to the rest of the world to show it is one that i think addresses the concerns you raised. at the end of the day, the

president has again made clear that where there are continuing an imminent risks or threats to u.s. people, to americans, and to answer that last part of your question, the choice is to take the action that is necessary to stop those threats. again, i think you have seen that level of aggressiveness from the counterterrorism community, whether it is in situations i mentioned where we captured individuals because, where we can, we have taken that step. we have captured individuals, even in dangerous missions like that, where we have been aggressive, certainly as has been announced this past summer, where we sought to rescue, unfortunately not to -- not successfully, to rescue hostages in syria. where we need to be aggressive and assertive, we will be. but the counterterrorism policies for direction -- direct action are on a footing that we

can hold out as being and legal and sustainable over the long term. >> to those of you who came early and get in the front, you get a benefit from my inability to see anything more than 10 feet away. >> thank you for being here. simply put, terrorism as a global phenomenon is fed by recruit. feel disenfranchised, discriminated against, and economically stifled. they are infinitely susceptible to propaganda promising prestige and a paycheck. could you comment more on the propaganda countermeasures being implemented, with or without international partners, to ig well as economic impact of these states, where recruitment is high, that could bolster communication efforts?

>> a very good question. obviously, as you look across these areas i mentioned when i went through this around the world description of the types of threats we are concerned about, one of the common themes we see in these countries is not only a lack of governance and lack of security, the problems more deep-seated than that in terms of economic opportunity, educational opportunities. really deep-seated socioeconomic problems that are certainly the conditions that give rise to basically young man with little hope, little future, turning to radical and in some cases, ultimately violent extremism behavior. so, there is a broad array of things that need to be done that go far beyond the remit of nt tc and these are long-term systemic concerns working with the rest of our allies, regional partners, to address and largely

work down through the state department as well, and in some cases, the defense department, to address. an answer to your question. the first part -- the first part of your question is about counter messaging. one of things we do is analyze the nature of message our adversaries are putting out. what messages are they using? why do they think these resonate and do they? if so, in what ways and with whom? informationde that to other elements of the government, particularly the state department, having a more outward facing role helping to push back on that message through diplomatic and strategic medications. we would not be the ones to actually send out that message. we help analyze it and understand it the help inform anse are fossil in shaping image in the u.s. and shaping a counter message that would be effective.

>> i want to build on the question little bit here in 2000 and 2001, we were dealing with the failed state in afghanistan and repercussions. the failed states now going by the half-dozen, we have got serious, iraq, failed or failing. libya, which is barely a country anymore. yemen, a prime candidate to move up into the dubious category. nigeria, if iern look at it, the resources of the counterterrorism committee of the united states are now being asked to be stretched very far and wide. how do we figure out what the priorities are and how do we ron does notal hi load trade next week, because they have the essential to do so, but we do not have the resources focus on strategic

thinking. >> an important part of what we do and essential question. as we look across the middle east and north africa, we see all these countries that are in some sense not being affected -- effective at governing. we see terrorist groups take advantage of insurgencies. 11, more or less, but that is about where we see the number of countries where terrorist groups are taking advantage of insurgencies. and prioritizing and understanding what is happening in these countries, so that we can allocate limited resources a centraly, it is -- challenge for us. the president talked about this at west point and on other occasions, where he pointed out we have to work with our partners and build up the capabilities of some of these

countries and seek to develop solutions beyond the u.s., going and militarily. across these countries, i think the key for me is to be very precise and careful about identifying the level of threat they pose, that the groups pose and operate. not just putting all of these groups on the same plane. vicious as heras rom has been, we do not see that posing a threat to us here in the united states, or even now really having an agenda to do so. that does not mean that may not change. but right now, it is not core al qaeda. ,he groups operating in libya brutal, militias, certainly, the terrorist attack in benghazi was

a significant attack. do not necessarily put those individuals on the same plane as we do core al qaeda. the challenge is prioritizing, being clear about the threat, being steely eyed about where we to put our limited resources, and then, making a really concerted effort >> here are some of the latest campaign ads running in north carolina. cutting nearly $500 million.

sliced and diced education, creating chaos in our classroom and hurting middle-class families while giving tax breaks to yacht and jet owners. tom tillis, cutting our schools, giving breaks to the wealthy. the democratic senatorial campaign committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> in the private sector, businesses are built on accountability. accountability is a foreign language in washington. the debt is out of control, and neither party has stopped it. kay hagan enabled president obama's worst ideas. she refuses to clean up his mess. you and i have to clean up hers. i'm tom tillis. i approve this message and that's why i'm running for the u.s. senate. the kay hagan-tom tillis debate coming up in a little bit over an hour, their first televised debate.

until then, we go to connecticut with democratic governor dan malloy being challenged by republican tom foley, a former ambassador to ireland. recent polling gives mr. foley the lead in that race. " poll givestimes him a nine point lead. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. i don't need to go to a great deal of length to tell you about our two guests we have tonight. let me start this program by saying welcome governor malloy and tom foley, please. [applause] [indiscernible]

gentleman, before we start -- bear with us for a minute. this is a very important part of the program, the timing. each of you have 25 minutes to use for your discretion. each of you will have your own timer. chris christie was unavailable tonight. as timers, we have a couple of bullets and columnists. governor, he will be your timer. abreastards to keep you of what your time is. be youry, he will timer. he too has cards to keep you abreast of how you are doing with your time there. with that said, good evening, gentlemen. nice to see you. let's get started. we are not going to decide this race tonight, unfortunately. we have a couple more months we have to campaign and we will have to do this a few more times. but i would like to do tonight

is set the framework by identifying those issues which will be the framework of this campaign, and he tone. , under the heading of best character count, let me start with this question here. governor, you have suggested in the past that ambassador foley has not always been truthful. ambassador foley, you have suggested that the appearance of unethical behavior on the part of the governor. here is the first question. governor, do you believe ambassador foley is dishonest? ambassador foley, do you believe the governor is unethical? who wants to go first? [laughter] thatu know, i think records are important, what people have done in the past in their professional or political lives is important. , thenk ultimately

constituency, voters decide what is most important. know what happens in the future based on what people have done in the past. i think lots of things get commented on. in connecticut, we are making progress. we are moving forward. we should be proud of that. i'm proud to talk about connecticut in very strong fashion about how far we have come and how far we have yet to people will make predictions based on tom's record and my record, and i suppose it will be discussed. >> ambassador foley. >> it's extremely important, both truthfulness and integrity, which is related to ethics. governor of any state, but the governor of connecticut is the single most important person

having an impact on the people's lives in the state. critical to that role and to leadership that that be a person who is trusted both in what they say, that what they say is factual, that what they say doesn't misrepresent the truth or misrepresent the situation, and i have talked about malloy because i think the governor and his staff have repeatedly tried to distort what is going on in the state. we will talk more about that tonight. i think that is a lack of truthfulness that discredits a leader. i think ethics is extremely important because if the citizens don't believe that is servingnment their interests and representing them well and that there are deals being done, money is being spent for insiders to dictate policy and that the government

isn't serving the interests of ordinary, everyday citizens, that lack of public confidence compromises somebody possibility to lead. both are absolutely essential. i think both are absolutely essential. i don't recall the governor say that i thought -- they thought i did not tell the truth. i have questions for the governor ethically. i think they will be important issues to the campaign. me remind everybody there are three of us on the stage and only one of us has violated the law in connecticut with respect to elections and paid a fine this year because of that. i think you are absolutely right. history is a precursor to the future. with respect to the issues we will debate back and forth, i want to be very clear that i d'