of the tradition of the arts, humanities, literature, here in iowa, in we're so proud of that because we were thedegree. in essence, it was invented here and it was in response to our creator writers but also to our artists. you may be familiar with the painting known as american gothic. painted by grant wood. he was on our faculty many years ago and was part of the source for this idea of giving academic credit for creative work. whether it is writers, artists, musicians, we have a long and proud tradition of supporting the arts and humanities here in iowa. >> sally mason is the president of the university of iowa. we appreciate you joining us. thank you. >> next week, university of

wisconsin, illinois, indiana university, all the presidents of those universities will be joining us here on "washington journal." up, the brookings institution is holding a panel discussion on the independence vote in scotland. i believe september 15 is when the vote will be held. all indications show that the vote is close. two administrators from the university of edinburgh there. it is just getting started now. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> i want to welcome you to one of our first event in our revamped brookings conference space. i am thrilled that the microphone works. it seems fitting to inaugurate our new facility with the big question of certainly next week,

the prevent -- potential revamping of the united kingdom. if the referendum moves to a yes vote, the renovation will be an overhaul to a system that we have known for 300 years, and many of us here on the panel are a product of. welcome toghted to colleagues that have come in from edinburg to be with us. both are from the university of edinburgh who have been spearheading a major study of the implications of the referendum and of what will 18.en after september this has been a huge study and this has been symbolic of the whole debate about the scottish referendum. it has been heavy on process.

as we know, many people around the world are watching this closely because this is a rather unique event, something that has been negotiated over a period of time, a project in the decades of interaction between edinburgh and london on issues of devolution and autonomy. we are now at the big day and the rest of the world is paying attention. of course, a lot of events that could not have been anticipated when british prime minister david cameron and scottish first minister sat down to hash out the details of what would happen on september 18, have really framed this. we have had input from unexpected places, including crimea and the leadership weighing in on their interest in the outcome.

and of course, we are also against the backdrop of events in catalonia and barcelona, spain. lots of interest in what happens outside of the united kingdom. but the big question that we will look at today and hopefully give you a sense of implications for the future for the united kingdom, scotland, and europe, and implications for the united states. we are grateful for everyone participating in the panel. we are also joined by geoff dyer, one of the senior journalists for "the financial times." he is originally from scotland. this shows the diversity of the whole issue. juliet is originally from the united states but is a resident at the university of edinburgh. charlie can tell you about his

own origins. in terms ofn framed civic nationalism and political sources, and that is important. finally, we will turn to jeremy schapiro for the united states perspective. brookings,ng back to where he has been a fellow for some time, he is also a special advisor to the assistant secretary for the european department. he was not assigned to think about scotland in the united kingdom then, but we are hoping that they are now. thank you for joining us. i will turn it over to charlie thewill give us a sense of perspective of the referendum, the paradigm, the framework, how this is all involved. i want to thank charlie and

juliet for coming because they have used their research money to be here and we are very grateful. thank you very much, indeed. it's a great pleasure to be here at brookings and to see so many people here. indeed, representing a broad program of research on what is happening in scotland and the rest of the u.k., the future of the u.k. and scotland. if you typed that into google, you will find us. what we are looking at is the big question, should scotland be an independent country, yes or no? that is what voters will have before the next week as they enter the polling booths. decision bymentous any standard, a decision that could end what has been generally seen as the one of the most successful unions of nations in world history, and if we do ended, there will be immense domestic and

international implications. so quite rightly, the eyes of the world are on scotland. we will have in scotland by the end of the weekend some 400 camera crews in edinburgh. thousands of print journalists covering the events of the next week which is quite extraordinary. what they will see is a nation exploring its right to self-determination with great seriousness. 4.3 million scots have registered to vote in the referendum. that is 97% of the eligible electorate, which is utterly unprecedented. we expect on that basis to see it turn out of at least 80%, and we have not seen turnouts at that level in u.k. politics the immediate period after the second world war. what is striking is how the debate is being conducted.

lotsve seen and have had of press coverage of the occasional bursts of online abuse and there have been a small handful of confrontations on the streets, but that is just a very minor part of the debate. more generally we have seen an actual ordinary flowering of civic engagement, people in their communities and churches and town halls, even more informally, committing themselves to thinking about scotland's future. way,nk this is, by some the biggest civic engagement process in scottish history. from that, we will have a well-informed electorate as we go to the polls this week. so you might ask, what will they think? up on the screen we have a moving average of the last six opinion polls of various point in time. you can see, at the end of last

year, on the far left, the pink line at the top which is no, was at 60%-plus, and the yes was below 40%. you can see in a rather uneven process, a significant narrow wing of the polls in the spring of this year. but what you can see most strikingly is a rapid narrowing in the last couple of weeks. the last six polls carried out over the last eight days shows 47%.or independence at that has now narrowed by one further point. 51-49.rage is now expect a close outcome on thursday next week. a few words on the big themes that each side in the debates

have put forward. i will use the framing of negative and positive campaigning for this because i think the negatives probably outweigh the positives. on the no side, largely led by the u.k. government and also by the cross party campaign better together, we have had an essentially negative message, a message all about risk, uncertainty, loss, you will be worse off, and a refusal to accept some of the ideas the scottish government would like to pursue if scotland became independent, including various forms of partnership with the rest of the u.k.. to quote several figures on the no side "it is not going to happen." what we have seen is a quite dismal vision, in terms of content, it is all going to go terribly wrong, and dismal in terms of presentation.

there has been a certain level of difficulty in getting the message across. i think that message of risk and loss have shown a diminishing return. it has lost its impact and that's one of the reasons why you see a fall in support for .he no side what we are seeing now is a big the financial sector, "the financial times" carrying lots of stories like that. but that may be double-edged. scots can be a rather first to people telling them what to do. no side we have seen a little positive campaigning, very little about why it is good , and certainly very little about why it would be better, why scotland would be better if it state in the union.

we have seen a bit of a change in the last week on this as the no side has firmed up an offer, and more specifically, a timetable for additional powers for the parliament should scotland remain in the u.k.. but the negatives outweigh the positives. side,emes on the yes generally, a positive message, generally aspirational, generally talking about the possibility of a better society, social justice, democratic legitimacy, a different role in the international arena. better policy, the two and to scotland's needs, not driven by the interests of the heartland of the u.k. economy in london and the southeast of london. and it aspirational message about continuing friendly partnerships in many areas with the rest of the u.k. after independence. all very positive but also, i

have to say, very vague, and unconvincing, especially in that emphasis on partnerships because it relies on the willingness of the partner and the partner have said we are not really very .illing in the last weeks we have seen a stronger negative message from the yes side. tofact, they have managed conjure up a presentational perfect storm with three elements. if we stay, the national health service, the icon of postwar british society, will be privatized. if we stay, social inequality will increase. if we stay, we will continue to be governed by a political party which is deeply disliked in scotland. nhs privatization, inequality, conservatives being brought together in an effective way, having real traction, another reason why the polls have closed.

i think we can boil down the big decision to pretty much this -- the no side says if you leave, you will suffer economically. stay, weide says if we will have a future of social injustice. that is the choice. if we vote yes, what next? we will see a negotiation of extraordinary complexity dealing simultaneously with the dissenting omen of scotland from the rest of the u.k.. no easy task, but made much more difficult by the complications of the domestic medical timetable, including a u.k. election in may next year which will be held while those negotiations would be underway. that, theime as scottish government would be working with the u.k. government to work out the process and terms of scotland's membership of the international community, no easy task.

those negotiations will have a number of key issues. currency arrangements will be at the heart. that will no doubt be connected to discussion about scotland's share of assets, in particular oil and gas reserves, but also liabilities, in particular, the share of the scottish u.k. public debt. issue,e is, on that after a yes vote, the sides would discover a mutual interest in messages of reasserts and stabilization to markets. some of the hard rhetoric we may goeard before into a common endeavor to calm things down. notill be challenging, least because other countries have similar situations. nato membership will be challenging. not least because of the scottish government's commitment

to remove the u.k. plus nuclear weapons bases, part of the wider nato deterred from scotland. we can expect package deals, perhaps extending across different areas, currency and nuclear weapons is one package often evoked in that sense. i would imagine we would see quick agreement on some of the key issues, not least because of that pressure for economic stability, but also long transition. for implementation of working out final details. final big challenge would be how to insulate all of that very sensitive, lots of different, simultaneous negotiations, from what would be a febrile political atmosphere in the u.k. if we vote no, there will be less urgency, there will be a limited challenge to economic

stability, and the minimal international dimensions to the question. do have a timetable for the delivery of the additional powers for the scottish parliament in which the no side has recently set up, and that starts on the 19th of september and they rested -- rapid process would continue so that legislation could be in place prior to the u.k. election, involving the decentralization of tax powers and welfare tax policy. there will be plenty of issues around that, not least because the prounion parties are divided between themselves, but also within themselves on the content of the addition of devolution powers. there is a big question as to whether any compromise they come up with will satisfy demand in scotland. i say that, because whatever happens, close to half of scots,

if we vote no, we'll have voted to leave. if we vote no, this is not an endorsement of the u.k. as is. there will be tremendous pressure to placate that drive which has led practically half of scots to vote no. this will not be easy. placate theyou scots, you may as well start resentment in other parts of the u.k.. we are starting to hear that in wales and in particular, england, where there is a the cushynse about deal that scotland is perceived to have. if yes, you will be observing, and some of you will be participating in a process of the enormous significance and no little drama with important international ramifications. if it is a no, you will be observing an inward looking debate no that with its own dramas as the u.k. casts around

for a second internal arrangement. can find them, but whether we get to that situation, we will have to wait until next thursday. >> thank you. i think you lay that out wonderfully for everyone. juliett, the larger implications? to you and your colleagues here at things for coming here to let us talk about these issues. i will briefly talk about foreign policy in the referendum debate, what the yes side says about what an independent scottish foreign policy would look like, and then both internal and external reactions. and then i will conclude by challenging a couple of assumptions on both sides of the debate. i should say, foreign policy is not a key issue in which voters are likely to decide and cast their vote on next week, but foreign policy is the most distinct area that would change with independence, given

scotland already has devolved powers in many areas of public policy, health, education. it is foreign affairs that sovereignty would give scotland considerable new powers. this has also been part of the discourse at least at the elite double. so what would an independent scottish foreign policy look like? the yes side has outlined some directions although not completely specific, that it would take a scottish foreign policy. i like to characterize date foreign policy aspirations in terms of four pillars. profits, protection, principles, and pride. let me say a few things about what an independent scottish foreign policy would look like along these pillars. on the profits, the yes side embraces a liberal pro-trade economic foreign policy in his discussion of the advantages of continued eu membership. we would see continuity in economic foreign policy similar to current u.k. foreign policy,

ith a smaller economy. on the pillar of protection, the yes side makes the case for continued membership in nato, something the party rejected until referendum party began. scottish defense force would be the cornerstone of scotland's protection. its military would focus on its territorial integrity but would also take a regional defense role in northern europe and the north sea. its defense budget is modeled after other small european states and proposes a focus on maritime forces. it rejects the trident submarine, the u.k.'s current nuclear deterrent that reside in scottish waters, and says it wants the weapons removed as soon as possible after independence, but has not given a dead time.

that is the protection. it is with the principal pillar that the yes side 60 but the most daylight between himself and having characterizes the u.k. foreign policy. they emphasize that it would have different international priorities from westminster. most clearly, in their words, in matters of war and peace. the anti-nuclear argument is also based on value statements such as "trident is an affront to basic decency." the yes side is laying out aspirations for an ethics-based foreign policy, talking about scotland being a champion for international justice and peace, international development, human justice, butlimate there are only a few clues in how these would be implemented. scotland would not be an isolationist country but its participation in international peacekeeping would be governed by means of international legitimacy and respect for international law. many times along these lines we

have asserted the hypothetical argument that an independent scotland would not have participated in iraq. lays a place in most dates foreign policy and it is the objective self-image. there is little talk of pride in the yes campaign materials but occasionally they talk about scotland as an outward facing nation exporting goods, people, and ideas around the world, and referred to their proud military tradition as well. so what is the no side reaction? risk,tress uncertainty, and constraint on scotland as a small state. the no side argues the international membership: six are not automatic, it eu membership might be vetoed, and if granted, is not likely to come with an opt out that the current -- that the u.k. currently has. the no side point out that membership in nato could come with responsibilities, possibly

including the u.k. nuclear deterrent in scotland. the numbers for defense and intelligence in terms of spending and personnel do not add up and could create a security risk. the no side is very familiar to those of us who study international relations, reflecting the perspective that most dates do not matter, cannot have the influence that big states have, dependent on military alliances, and must often coppermine their values in exchange for security. according to this view, scotland's interests are better protected at home and abroad by a u.k. with a permanent seat in the security council and have high profile, well-respected large diplomatic service with considerable the parties. the yes side has some counterreaction to the position on the foreign policy, arguing membership and cooperation with others will come because it is in their interest. a stable intelligence environment in scotland with

shared intelligence is critical to the u.k.'s own safety given the shared geographical space and thus cooperation is likely. the yes side also argue small state to not need nuclear protection of mixed states, do not need a global profile, and do not attract the enemies and threats that big states do. consistent with research on small states, it is often pointed out they can punch above their weight and have influence because they are small states. often more trusted because they are seen as less of a threat to others. so what has been the international reaction to this? statesy at least, most have conformed to international norms of noninterference and democratic processes and said this is a matter for the u.k. or scottish people. but where external actors have weighed in, this has largely been on the no side. comments from external actors states, the united

states, also international organizations and businesses. seee comments largely scottish independence as an unwelcome and puzzling to start -- instance. there are others that have voiced general concerns about precedence and a so-called balkanization of europe that the scottish independence would set off, and concerns of a weakening stable ally, the u.k. this is probably the basis of the u.s. and french expressions of concern about independence. i do not anti-international commentary has much of an impact on the internal debate and a vote next week. perhaps the financial market reaction this week was more important, but when states intervene, the risks can may backfire among the scottish population. so i will end by questioning two assumptions i see in the debate

on independence and foreign policy, and to be fair, one assumption on the no side and one on the yes side. argument that an independent scottish foreign policy would fare poorly, there is an assumption that all else is static and only the question of scottish independence is changing. the u.k., for example, is presented as a major power that better represents the people of scotland in the world, but this is not a test of you and not one invulnerable to change. our balances in the world are changing, emerging powers are more important and big powers also do not have as much influence. the u.k. is in the midst of downsizing and will likely face further budget cuts. then there is the assumption there are changes. the house of commons vote on serious showed a lack of trust

on international intelligence, a lack of enthusiasm for humanitarian intervention, and real disagreements even in the current governing coalition over the works of trident. certainly, the pro-u.s. position in the u.k. is strong but arguably not as strong as it used to be and may not be in the future. my point is these are not just issues that divide westminster versus scotland, they are debated within westminster, too, and even without independence, may affect their role in the world. on the yes side, there has been strong assumption of rational interest-based cooperation. they argue of course britain will share the pound and intelligence in the eu and nato will let scotland in because it is in their interest to do so. it probably is in their interest to do so and it is not about starting assumptions. but we know states do not always act according to their interests, or they have competing interests which may

complicate external relations. consider the rest of the u s, and cost most important negotiating partner in a post-independent world. the u.k. will hold national elections next year and if conservatives win, they have promised a referendum on the membership. negotiations with scotland on trident, on the pound, the division of assets, military, on everything will be happening in the middle of these political and likely contested campaigns. thank you. we will not go to geoff dyer. "the financial times" has been running a series on the contours of this debate and many of the issues have been talked about. he and his colleagues will be busy in the next few weeks, especially as juliett has let on, that no matter what income, this will feed into a much bigger debate in the united

kingdom in the run-up to what will be a contested general election next year in may 2015. one of the issues that juliet mentioned that we should put out on the table is the continuation u.k.'s claim over a security council seat. coverof my colleagues who other areas of the world, particularly rising powers, that there will be a big demand from some of them about a rethinking of the national security council seat. we know, anday, as certainly the outcome of the referendum will raise that even higher. nothing will be constant in this debate and there will be more issues on the table as we look forward. to give have asked you a big perspective on these issues. obviously, you have quite a lot to say on the matter. thank you to brookings for inviting me here. i appreciate the invitation.

and juliett have laid out effectively the issues on the table, some of the underlying thinking on both sides of the campaign. i do not want to go over the same ground, but maybe what i will do is try to outline the issue of what an independent scotland might look like, if there is a yes vote next week, even though it is a tossup. try to ask the question of what that would mean and look like. the key point to understand is that the yes vote next week is almost the start of the issue, not the end. a yes vote would be the start of a very confiscated divorce proceeding and it may be amicable but it could be nasty, but it will be very complicated and it would be the start, not the end of the process. as we speak today, the basic outlines of what an independent scotland might look like are still unclear. there are core questions about

its place in the world, what the state will look like, institutional questions. they have not been resolved. there are still lots of questions around that debate. we mentioned that an independent scotland would like to be part of the european union, part of the sales pitch. scotland would like to think that it is more to go than the rest of the u.k.. that was not always the case, but that is part of the pitch at the moment. sometimeslls show that is true, sometimes not, but is very much a part of the snp.orm for the them also important to because it is crucial for trade relations for an independent scotland, the general idea that

business as usual could carry on even if we take this yes vote, a lot of things could carry on as normal. however, it is not immediately clear that scotland could become a member of the eu. it would reach multiple qualifications but there are three potential obstacles. the first one is like the spanish question. there are other questions in a you that may object, but spain is the one that is most likely to have a problem with scotland becoming a member of the eu. look intot want to the changes happening in catalonia. that is an incentive to drag things out and to show to the cattle and that there is a price to be paid for taking this move. that would be a tough negotiation that scotland would face. there is the question of whether the u.k. would ultimately back it. again, it seems unlikely that the u.k. would say no, but there

will be a competent in negotiation ahead. this is one of the bargaining chips that the rest of the government would have as scotland cannot become a part of the eu until both sides have signed up on the separation agreement. that is another factor. the third bit is the euro. in theory, new members are supposed to become members of the euro as well. given the crisis in the euro, one may imagine there is more reluctance to push that rule wholeheartedly, but in theory, scotland would have to be a part of the euro, and that is not something that nationalists say they want to do. most of these issues would ultimately be resolved, there would be a sensible compromise, but it would be a painful and difficult negotiation. similarly, scotland wants to become part of nato as we have

heard. this is part of the general business as usual, we are not going to rock the boat too much. you do not need to worry that an independent scotland will cause radical changes, but that will not be completely simple negotiations either. mentioned the scottish national party are very .nti-nuclear that it is a basic affront. there is also anti-american populism that is part of the snp pitch as well. they talk about america's illegal wars. a sense, scotland and not want to have nuclear weapons, plaintiff against nuclear foreign policy in the middle east. there are other countries with a similar profile, but that is a wrinkle, a complication, something that they would have to do to soothe american

concerns about that. and then presumably concerns about defense spending under an independent scotland. entirely possible to imagine pressures on a scottish government that would push it into a direction of trying to cut the fence spending. everything that the u.s. wants at the moment from nato is another country falling below the 2% arc. -- mark. i don't think ultimately these potential obstacles woodblock scotland from becoming a member of nato, but it will be a drawnout negotiation or things will not be as simple as they are being projected in the campaign. the unit mentioned the eu issue.

however, the currency issue has become the most difficult issue that will face an independent scotland if we vote yes next week. charlie mentioned there would ultimately be sensible, establishment compact between scotland and the rest of u.k. to sorted out here and i am not clear about that. i am more skeptical. this is a key issue because i think there is no easy path for independent scotland on the currency issue. let me lay out the various options that scotland would have it became a member of the eu. there would be the euro option, and for a while that was the preferred option, but is not because of the recent problems that it has had. other options would be to issue its own currency. ultimately, that would be an economic mechanism that would give it the most autonomy, the best chance in the long run to have an independence kaddish economic policy.

path to establishing its own currency would be very confiscated and difficult, we have to establish credibility, build institutions, or raise about ms. masters and liabilities, currency risks. there is a risk of quite a lot of economic turbulence in the short and medium term before they got to have a credible currency. there is the sterling is asian option which would involve scotland continuing to use the pound sterling but not being a part of the institutional arrangement of the u.k., similar to how panama uses the u.s. dollar. that is possible that there are problems with that as well, obviously being that scotland would not have a central bank. so to defend its banking system or to have a backstop for its system, they would need to build up a reserve fund which would mean cutting spending for a number of years in order to build of this fund, and economic cost to scottish spending that

has not really been discussed that would be implicit in the sterlingization process. it is understandable why the snp is putting its money on a plan to stay part of the currency option and then renegotiate the terms, essentially, the current currency union, so that scotland , ideally, would have membership to the bank of england, become a , partlyder essentially setting monetary conditions, and would have access to the facilities, the lender of last resort is a ladies. -- facilities. from an independent scotland's point of view, that makes sense. but where i disagree with charlie, it does not really make sense for the rest of the u.k..

for economic reasons and for political reasons. economic reason would be, all the risks would be on the one side. if scotland got into trouble, an independent scotland, england would have the resources to bail it out. if england got into trouble, scotland would not have the resources to bail it out. it is the classic moral hazard. all the risk would lie on the english side. there is little reason i could see them wanting to sign up for this. they are exposing themselves to huge risks down the road in scotland had a different economic policy, essentially free riding on the stability that the bank of england could provide them. decide to dodid that, the price they would ask .or would be very rigid fiscal rules limits on public spending, financial roles

essentially asking for bank of england regulation of the entire system and possibly pulling fiscal resources. even though scotland would get control of these revenues from the oil, they would have to make some of that money available to the broader u.k.. the implication of that is a notionally independent scotland ofld not have a great deal real autonomy and independence in the way it runs its economic all at sea. that is something that has not come through in the arguments about what a currency union would mean for an independent scotland. even if you accept that the establishment would ultimately want to do a deal with england and scotland, because they do not want a crisis, politically, it does not seem possible for them to do so. the striking thing about this littledum is how link --

england seems to care of what is happening in scotland. one example of that is when québec had its referendum, on the week before, several hundred people marched in the streets of montréal, canadians from outside of québec asking them to stay. there will be no demonstrations like that in scotland. that is not part of the debate. the sentiment is the opposite, of resentment. if you want to go, -- i cannot use the words. it is not a very polite atmosphere. there will be a general election and the next year. impossible for the scottish political party to get elected on a platform saying we should do right by the scots, they will need us. i think the opposite will be the case. on english will demand

political parties very tough conditions. from the english point of view, currency union, scotland seems to be saying we want out but we want all the benefits of staying in. that is the way it plays in english politics. i do not think that is a sustainable argument. for those reasons, i am more pessimistic as to how that will play out. that will be difficult and will not be the kind of answer that scotland or the snp would like. these very tight opinion polls are fantastic for journalist. this is a great story for my newspaper, but it seems to be a terrible outcome for scotland and britain. , note no alternative suggesting that is the wrong way to do things, but 51-49 is a terrible result showing that it is a divided country and has

fragile political consensus in order to take the big step. it also cuts the other way as well. 51-49 is not a rounding endorsement of the union either. so either way we are entering a period of some considerable political fragility. i will leave it there. i am sure we can get into these things in q&a. >> thank you. that last point actually makes the united states, where we are having this debate, think about our own divisions internally between the various political constituencies, seem quite mild, which is an achievement. that, i can turn to jeremy to see how things look from here in d.c. where we are all sitting. to all the previous panelists for coming. gave a good view of what an optimistic presence

in scotland would be on the international scene. ist i would like to cover what the u.s. government is essentially thinking about in the scottish referendum and also how the u.s. would react if there is a yes vote. as in julian mentioned, the u.s. does not really talk about this very much. they have talked about some concerns over issues, nuclear issues, but have not taken a position officially on the referendum. this is for rather clear reasons. in the first instance, it would be rude to comment on the internal deliberations of a democratic country. it is not unprecedented, shall we say, for the united states to and i but it is impolite, think in general a principal for

the u.s. not to do that kind of thing. particularly for allies which it recognizes as a legitimate system and are engaged in a legitimate process. it's very clear on the u.s. side that is what is going on for better or worse. of course, the united states has an opinion. i think they recognize, however, that stating that opinion is not always help all to promoting it. in u.s. weighed semi-accidentally, i think, on the question of british membership in the european union a year or two ago, and created quite a firestorm in britain. one of the things it did was align both sides -- it turned out both sides carried out very much what the u.s. thought and it became a lightning rod. so i think, since that time, they have taken the approach that it can actually predict

very well what u.s. weighed into the debate will do come in terms of public opinion. so it is best to stay out of it. that is reinforced by the sentiment that was already mentioned, that scots are somewhat averse to being told what to do, and particularly averse to being told what to do by americans. opinion,n absence of we can make a fairly educated guess on what the u.s. government thinks. the united states is a status quo power. i think that is something that we often forget as we talk about crisis and u.s. action. in fact, as the sort of leader a strongrld, there is bias toward stability in u.s. foreign policy and a strong bias against secession of any sort. really, secession, for a status quo power, is a complete collapse of policy.

here again, the u.s. is not entirely insistent in this regard. mind, aerkely comes to few other examples, but each of those examples, if you look at u.s. policy, they strongly sought to avoid any idea that there was a precedent set toward secession, or that there was any right of secession by provinces. i think that view israel enforced in this particular case because the u.s. essentially sees this as awol of its best friends divorcing -- as two of its best friends divorcing. that is never a joyful experience. i think even beyond the general principle of a status quo power, there are some real issues for the united states, some alluded to already, but i will go over them more directly from a u.s. perspective. probably the critical one is the idea of the weakening of a key u.s. ally, the u.k.

the u.k. is clearly, from a u.s. perspective, a very active, effective ally, and there are precious few of those these days. view that inneral the tumbled that has been described after a yes vote -- tumult after a yes vote, would turn inward after an exit of scotland. it would be more likely to get out of the european union in the referendum in 2017, which would further shrink british influence and activism in the world. there is also a view that scottish exit would put yet at greater pressure on the british defense budget and the reddish armed forces. overall, might mean that the u.k. would no longer be able to play the kind of lead role in nato that it has traditionally had.

think, is ahis, i fear of a weakening of nato and the eu. the eu would turn inward yet again, as it had to negotiate the question of secession in entry, and scottish specifically, and because it would make an exit more likely, -- a british exit from the -- sorry, i have been in a conference about that. this gets to what the u.s. said when took a position against british exit from the european union, looking for a stronger and within a strong european union. it is very clear that scottish exit weakens that strong britain and british exit from the european union would weaken that strong european union. think, contrary to what has been said, this is less

about the nuclear deterrent than about demonstrating weakness and disunity at a critical point in nato's history in the face of a newly resurgent threat from russia. if you look at the nato summit last week and the president cause trip to estonia, you see a very strong urge to assert nato unity, assert nato strength industry -- face of the russian threat. the whole idea of one of its members, key members breaking up , and the type of government that was described taking over in scotland and all of the difficult negotiations over nato , does not really appealed to the united states at this critical moment in dealing with russia.

i think the third reason that the u.s. would be against this precedent.tion of as fiona mentioned, the leader of crimea has already mentioned scottish independence as a precedent for what he would like to do. we have also heard expressions of this this morning on npr, i heard a resident of donetsk asking the question is: can do scotlandan't we -- if can do it, why can't we? of coarse, this present across the eu, so spain and other key u.s. allies could face this question. fiona and i have a piece about ups which we distributed out front which talks about the precedent that this set and the difficulty that that might cause

for the european union. so what will the u.s. do in the case of a yes vote? it is always a fair bet in the face of dramatic international developments that the u.s. will urge calm. i think that will be the first reaction. but what that really means is that they will broadly accept urging, in and be order to make the best of a bad situation, a fast resolution of a negotiated, agreeable divorce. specifically to create a sense of reassurance and minimize the disruption that i talked about that they fear. think, quietly, and to some extent behind the scenes, push for it eu nato membership for scotland on

reasonably fair terms. implied,l be, as geoff very hard negotiations on the nuclear deterrent. but i think they are ultimately looking for a solution. they would certainly prefer a weak member of nato to a nonmember. ,here are, as was mentioned plenty of nato members which have romantic anti-american notions, particularly about the nuclear deterrent, and this fits into a wider debate. the united states will not welcome a new one, but will prefer it to a nonmember, to a sort of irish solution. to be apoint is it has negotiated solution and a transition. i think, very clearly, the united states will push back

against the idea that this referendum represents a precedent for places like crimea, donetsk, or even catalonia. the way that they will do that is by emphasizing the mutual decision nature that this was agreed by both sides, and that that was the critical feature which allows this type of referendum and separation. it must be agreed, both by the region that is holding the referendum, and by the state in --ch the region along belongs. they will say this is totally different from ukraine or from the provinces in georgia where this is under dispute. speculative terms, if the scots vote yes, the u.s. will reevaluate its decision to

play a fairly hands-off role in the british exit question for the european union. they will still have the problem that i mentioned that it is not clear how weighing in will help. but they will have the president of not weighing in, having not helped. statesly, the united does not make the same mistake twice, it makes a new mistake. >> [laughter] >> so i think we will see them play a more active role. the argument they will use is that because they have a stake in perdition membership in the european union, just as, for example, a country like britain would have a stake in the united states membership in nato, they have every right to weigh in. , inink they will be willing the run-up to that referendum, to make their opinion much more known if scotland votes yes. >> thank you, jeremy.

obviously, we have a lot of issues here. with a half-hour we have left, i want to bring in the audience. i can see already lots of questions forming. i recognize quite a few people in the audience have a stake in the issue. i will take three questions right away. we have microphones which will come out to you if you will wait a second. then we will come back to the panel to ask them to comment. two questions in the lead here and on the opposite side of the aisle. wavehen also, in the back, and let me know about your questions. and please identify yourself. >> my name is hugo rosemont, speaking as a british ex-pat, but i do want to take up something that mr. dyer said, that the english do not care on the matter. i would really hate for that impression to be left with his

audience and more wind the. if you look at twitter, more generally, you do see today plans for signs of national unity from outside of scotland coming next wednesday. you also see -- and i recommend it strongly -- forgive me for getting slightly emotional on this matter, the spectator magazine launching a campaign for people outside of scotland, writing in very personal words why it is that they would want the scottish people to vote to stay in the united kingdom. that is probably all i have to say apart from my question, which is, it has been suggested that perhaps a no would be less urgent. a situation in terms of what would happen after. could you ask the panel if the referendum has not shown, and the campaign shows there is a wide feeling of disenfranchisement in scotland

and england and wales, and if it is, in fact, urgent, that there is a constitutional settlement in scotland and more widely in the event of a no vote. >> thank you. across the aisle. >> gerald chandler. could you relate to everything you have said in situation -- in relation to ireland? could there be an ireland, northern ireland situation, where is colin voted to thursday stay in the u.k., it would stay in the u.k.? have ireland and scotland better relations because they might end of using the euro, or could there be an even closer drawing of ireland to the u.k. because it is now kind of a club , that it is now relatively bigger? from "the nation." i think the panel for this

marvelously instructive survey. absenceo regret the from the pan on the eloquent governor of texas, the honorable rick perry, who has some views on secession as well. then i can use be closer to the mike. -- >> can you speak closer to the mike? >> everybody knows in england scots play a disproportionate role in leadership in institutions, cultural, andemic, economic, politics. one wonders about the composition, the social two parties of the

in scotland. of is there a cross gradient of some kind? it appears through some of the be goodons -- it would to know something about the composition of the opposing parties. >> thank you so much for all of these questions. -- we haveuestion had several sessions on this. it has confused people from the outside. a lot of people are trying to grasp who are the people on our side in terms of how they are right and defying themselves. jeff and i have talked about this.

my family have moved around the border between scotland and northern england. jeff is from scotland and living in the u.s.. a is obviously represented of larger u.k. entity. that is the history of the united kingdom, one of constant migration. the previous assets were founded on the fact that you were not enough people identifying themselves whole truly as scots to really carry the day. the s&p platform has been based they aredea created residents of the party. this whole issue of identity remains ready important. a question -- they're desperate

of the identity of great britain on the map. many of people in england having a backlash, the idea of wanting to leave. when youa larger issue think about responding to this, about the identity of britain. -- greatd kingdom britain is not the official name of the united kingdom but .verybody talks about it if there are questions raised by the united kingdom. quite complicated because the united kingdom is also a country of immigration and many people come from outside of the british isles, wondering how they are going to identify themselves on september 19. there are all kinds of .dentities

-- like many members of british parliament that have come from somewhere else, we have many parliament members from germany and portugal. how do they identify themselves? these are all issues that haven't come out on the panel that they have been a constant debate one way or another. you can also comment on some of this. these are great questions. very much for the questions. i'll try to tackle at least some of them. of my areas of personal is what theerests english think. i have done some survey work in england. i can endorse your comment in a sense that the english do care. when asked in april we found 19% of people in england and a very large survey who thought

scotland should be an independent country -- a very big majority who do not think that. withtle bit more in line what jeff is saying, if scotland does vote yet -- does vote yes what we know is people in would be in support of a tough line of negotiations toward scotland. if scotland decides to go then perhaps a little bit of backlash. urgency, that was not my no urgency. i think there would be a great angel of the u.k. level political system thinking we have sorted that, we have done that. no a more if we vote stable set of constitutional arrangements for all parts of the u.k. would be a strong priority.

there are some clear patterns which are quite interesting. men more likely to vote yes than people accept the peopleungest -- younger generally more likely to vote than older people, people from disadvantaged communities more likely to vote yes than people from more affluent communities. and then the national identity question. one of the best predictors we ise of voting intention around those people who feel primarily british. it doesn't work quite so well on the other side. doesn't lead so directly to supporting a vote. a poll was released from the which showeders

two thirds in favor of remaining with the u.k.. there would be territorial differences between different parts of scotland. i don't think that is going to lead to an irish partition situation. level ofiven that voter registration, given that likely level of turnout the formal rules, which say 50% plus one either way wins, i think we'll have sufficient legitimacy. >> i will answer a couple of questions quickly so we can get more questions from the audience. on the issue of identity, partly being an outsider i have been struck at how the identity, the nationalism and ethnic identity have not been part of the debate. political debate about policy preferences on foreign policy and health care

and spending issues. way thethat the electorate has been defined in terms of residency has taken away some of that. devote.us can't on the question of ireland it is interesting. ireland has looked more toward this debate then towards supporting scotland and independence. reached out to think about cultivating scottish irish connections. towards is looking more the nordic countries. those countries have largely stayed on the sidelines in this debate, not just after the referendum but after -- in the case of a yes vote after we will wait to dig

up the offer of scotland to be partners in alliances. >> this question is interesting because it is not formally part of the debates. if it is absolutely the underlying fabric of the debate, which is the sense that scottish identity has shifted in the last couple of decades. is a strongly held view of most scots that scotland is a different place based on a different education system, church, and legal system. all of these profound and deeply rooted aspects. there is the idea that one country in the world is england. there is this tension between the two and these last two become that has really much stronger. the thing that binds the u.k.

together has declined. u.k. was founded on the empire in the sense that it is one of the things of cap scots interested in the u.k. for a long time. second-floorof the cycling together, the trade union movement within the -- trade union movement was another powerful thing. scotland really broken . margaret thatcher had really broken up some of the checks and balances in the political grammar of the way u.k. worked. even though that is not what is officially on the platform it is very much one of the driving forces behind the way we got to this stage. we have globalization and individualism. to retreat more into tribal entities.

all the men of my fathers generation were wearing a suit. years underen 50 were wearing kilts. that is a way to explain the shift that is happening. identity is not on the manifesto but it is key to understand what is going on. i generally hope you are right. trying to make the case to scotland. >> i don't think you mean to personally. do you have anything to say on this? on your pointion about general disenfranchisement, that is an important point.

i make it in the piece i referred to. what scotland is expressing is it is often phrased this anti-english but it is more anti-london. brake --ses front expresses frustration that a lot of the united kingdom, northern england and wales, a lot of the the europeanf kingdom outside of the metropolitan london area and the englisheel about the government, the u.k. government. the disenfranchisement they feel from the city, the cultural distance that is being created by the different evolutions of london and the rest of the united kingdom. what the identity of scotland gives them is a language of vocabulary and an institutional platform to express that restfranchisement that the

of the united kingdom doesn't really have. that is why we see this to some franchise men coming forward must clearly and most strongly in scotland. i think it is a general problem in the united kingdom and i think it is something that the united kingdom should really deal with. i would share some of the pessimism that expresses they really will. >> i think many of the british newspapers have pointed out that those divides within the united kingdom are not neat. london itself is divided in politics. one of the features was the abolition of the london council.

it was always leaning to the left of the government. deal of effort inside of london. for a certain amount of self-determination -- i think this issue would take on interesting dimensions as we move forward. to get some questions from the back because a lot of people have been waving furiously. and please identify yourself. from "the new york times." what is the impact on pensions and banks it scottish people vote yes? many scottish people are dependent on the u.k. for social welfare, social security, and a matter of benefits.

>> we have public radio in barcelona. do you think people have the right to decide their own fate? we have 2al matter million people in barcelona yesterday. the spanish government does not allow the capital vote to go ahead. you think that any people should have the right to decide their own fate? >> a question from the gentleman standing right behind you. >> i wouldn't want anyone to think my accent reflects any bias. it seems that most of the organizations have published the portion of don't knows. quite often the press has footculated the polls to

them as absolute confrontation between the sn to know. succumb to this tendency. as far as i know the don't knows are big proportion of the poll. i think 20% approximately. i was wondering if the panel could comment on this and give some indication as to whether they think these voters will vote yes on it. >> we will start with charlie. >> i will start on that one. it is fairly standard practice when you are predicting elections to get rid of the don't knows and report figures without them. it does raise a question of which way they are leading. different polls are reporting different levels.

theepends a little bit on polling efforts. if people do face-to-face polling you get more don't knows. people are more reluctant face to face to give their opinion. the picture we have had from some academic surveys research, using the same panel of votes as different time points, which is the most reliable evidence that we have, was that between the two time points earlier this ,ear and in the early summer don't knows were breaking toward to 18. at a ratio of 25 that is perhaps one of the things we have been seeing. beyond that it is very difficult to say. nobody has asked about currency but i wants to come back to jeff and to clarify.

i am skeptical there would be a formal currency union. of i am sorry if that is what you thought i was saying. i do think the debate has become quite polarized and the no side has been so definitive in some parts have gone beyond that by saying the next u.k. manifesto for the labour party as saying we will not have the currency, that it will be very hard to move away from that position. was there suggesting would be an interested in mostlize a should process, likely around and in formal use of sterling. have seen the first stages of that stabilization process and the announcement of all of the major banks with headquarters in scotland yesterday saying that in the event of a yes vote they would move their registered

headquarters, if not necessarily many of their activities, to london so there would be a lender of last resort, which is one way of managing those transitional issues. that both point was sides, including the u.k., which would be bearing uncertain see around currency -- uncertainty around currency, uncertainty around business with many firms headquartered in the u.k., would have an interest in stabilizing and saying it is all going to be ok. the idea of sterling eyes asian -- of sterling eyes asian -- of lingization.

>> let me take the catalonian question and the back -- question in the back. jeremy was talking about presidents and secession -- about presidents and secession. dence andprece secession. it is a strong and ever-growing normative power in the international system. that is why you see outside actors, even if they are against scottish independence. they are not making many public comments on this. i think this concern about the spillover of scottish independence to other secession movements is sometimes

exaggerated. i was in a really good conference about this at the glasgow university last year. onbrought in several experts the secession all movement. most research shows they do not domino effect. it may be that other secessionist movements use an to pushas precedents their case. resulting movements are determined more by local factors rather than what has happened next door or across the world. i think secessionist movements around the world will use the scottish independence referendum in their movement for secession regardless of the outcome. there is a clear difference.

his was a case by westminster government to allow this to happen. this was a fully democratic realss without any conflict. it is quite a unique thing in international history. >> i will take the economic question. cap -- short term and short-term impact is that of uncertainty. numberwill create a huge of questions about future arrangements in the country and that can have some economic impact. you can see some pension fund money being moved over the border. you can imagine people withdrawing money from scottish banks, possibly if they start to get worried about future arrangements. will be a very strong self-preservation institutional movement on both

sides of the border to try and overcome that, try and stop the uncertainty from causing a corruption's in the economy it would really depend on what sort of currency arrangements eventually -- currency arrangement scotland eventually has. maybe they build up reserves, depending on which particular arrangement they have. the wildcard would be oil price theater there would be a large part of its revenue coming from oil. that could counteract it. the oil price could to find whether scotland could spend that amount of money in the medium-term. of uncertainty is a big issue at the moment. >> i will wisely weigh in on this determination question.

of nationalnorm self-determination is one in which the rhetoric of states is always exceeded the practice. it is very common for statesman to get up and extol the rights of self-determination. if you look at the history of the thing it has always somewhat in the right of self-determination but they do not have the right to determine the size and scope of the political community over which that self-determination runs. it is not legitimate for the brookings institution and to to bely decide it wants an independent country and secede from the united states, although in some cases we have considered it. this is an issue on which the civil war was fought and quite

clearly determined that even if there is a right to self-determination there's not necessarily a right to secession, especially secession that is not agreed by the larger political community. that has been a fairly strong practice. certainly there are many exceptions. even since the rise of the self-determination effort after world war i. >> i want to bring in the last set of questions. there is a gentleman in the back who has had his hand up for a long time. and then the lady in the front. please. please identify yourself. i am an intern here at brookings. if i understood correctly i if scotland gains its independence england will not have enough power and influence

to play a prominent role in nato. a what is this mean for the with england be kicked out of the dashwood england betake out of the >> then it is in now? gentleman behind the camera here and then the lady up front. >> i covered the referendum campaign two decades ago in byada when québec voted 50.01% to stay in canada. ever since this issue has totally disappeared from the political discussion in canada.

votes no by a similar outcome, will we see another referendum in two years or with this issue fade away? >> thank you. >> i am the congressional reporter for hispanic outlook. immigration debate when people talk about nativism and nationalism there is the connotation of xenophobia can and anti-immigrant. i am not hearing that in this conversation. quinto political science conference two weeks ago and european scholars told me the whole concept of multiculturalism is dead in europe. people do not talk about it. i am wondering if this debate is more about big government versus small government. these huge multi-cover -- multicultural governments are

identified. they don't feel like they can control them. xenophobia, orm, big or small government. >> it seems like there is a crowd of people outside the door. i hope you are not demonstrating on this issue. i will give the last word to our panelist charlie. recently have a government led by the pro-independence party, which was hoping to secure sufficient support to move towards a further round of constitutional discussions. it is a no vote i don't think they would be over in scotland. the first minister said once in a generation issue.

i suspect it could be reasonably flexible depending on how other events could go. i think that his terrain, which a sure political generation that could revive that debate. >> something quickly on the immigration debate, and it hasn't been part of the scottish nationalist independent movement at all. it may be that you are seeing the tensions within the united kingdom more broadly that jeremy spoke of about london versus the rest or divisions within london. seen in may be

independence referendum and in the u.k. it may be seen as a rise of more anti-immigrant populace parties. u.n., iuestion of the think a smaller rest of u.k. after a yes vote would raise more questions as to whether the u.k. has the right to be represented on the un security council. those questions are raised in that pandora's box is open with no simple solutions in sight. see that it would add to the call. , brazilians and indians will be out, saying this is the moment to reform the u.n.. germans have been more polite about it i suspect. the logic has been very powerful for some time. it hasn't happened because you need to organize consensus between the members and that doesn't seem to me -- it doesn't

seem to me there is any reason why it would be more possible after a yes vote. even if the national side loses they absolutely made a powerful case that there is a strong group of support for independence for scotland. >> a reminder you can see this program later on the c-span networks. of the scottish referendum is next thursday. we take you live to the white house where president obama is joined by former president bill clinton to mark the 20th anniversary of americorps. >> good morning president obama, president clinton and amerco or alum -- americorps alum.

happy birthday americorps. what an incredible honor it is to stand before you as we celebrate 20 years of service to america. please take your seats. since that first class donned their gray shirts 900,000 americans have served in americorps. committed 1.2 billion hours of service to get things done for america. now here we are at the white , joining ceremonies taking place across the nation in all 50 states at this moment and throughout the day, including territories. it's really a historic moment for every one of us.

at this time i would like to ask the members of the 2014 class of americorps to stand. [applause] the pledge is in your program and we invite you to follow along. as we recite the americorps pledge let us remember these exact words were very first spoken at the white house 20 years ago today. words, pleasese consider its meaning. take these words to heart. think about them. i hope that you will live these words from this day on. please raise your right hand and repeate after me.

"i will get things done for america to make our people safer, smarter, and healthier. i will bring americans together to strengthen our communities. faced with apathy, i will take action. faced with conflict, i will sea seek common ground. faced with adversity, i will persevere. i will carry this commitment with me this year and beyond. americorps member and i will get things done." classtulations americorps

of 2014. [applause] >> good morning. you guys are all so beautiful out here. ago i applied to become because irps member wanted to challenge myself and contribute to my community. during my year as an americorps vista at the los angeles free i realized that where a child eats, sleeps, plays, and ghost to school profoundly impacts health -- and goes to school profoundly impacts health. i have learned the power of resilience.

my experience fundamentally changed me. pediatrician at the children's hospital oakland. [applause] i served. wendy years ago i took a pledge to make our communities safer, smarter, and healthier. i carry this pledge with me every day. we elevate our nation by being an indispensable force for promoting resilience in the face of adversity. together we strengthen america. alum we get things done.

my experience and that of nearly 900,000 fellow americans would without been possible the wisdom, vision, and perseverance of president bill clinton. [applause] our nation is so grateful for his leadership. it is my extraordinary honor to introduce the inspirational president know clinton. -- president bill clinton. >> thank you very much. [applause] thank you. thank you, dana. and thank you for your service. mr. president, thank you for inviting me to share this day

you foru and thank your long history of community service. enduring impact remains after 20 years one of the most important things i have ever had a role in in public service. 21 years ago on this lawn we established americorps in the late sergeante shriver, who started the war on poverty. he loaned to me the pen brother-in-law president kennedy used to sign the peace bill. 20 years ago we swore in the first americorps class. then and as i believe is even more important today service is a spark to rekindle

the spirit of democracy in an age of uncertainty. day with aat great lot of people, including hillary who campaigned across 1992, thomasme in and me we would create a national service program. 1992, and who promised me we would create a national service program. we have lived this for a long time. thank a person who is up at her own ceremony in maryland today, barbara mikulski . there were many people in the white house involved, including , shirley, who wrote

, and i want tois thank in particular our first, and the biggest americorps .omponent, sitting here and -- thank you --ator harris law firm senator harris wofford. and i want to thank someone who is not here. a man who shepherd the legislation through, congress passed through congress. legislation through congress. we would not be here without his efforts, either.

and most important the volunteers. americorps works because all to getkept your promise things done. americorps works because there are people from every walk of life, from every religion, from every racial and ethnic group, straight and gay, southern, northern, western, eastern, people who have already finished college, and people who do not have their high school diplomas. and all things in between. him there are now mountains and mountains and mountains of which provesch that people who work together in diverse groups make better decisions and get more done. him therefore creative

cooperation beats constant conflict every single time. you have proven that every day. i want to thank our forbearers for the roots of this. the first cooperative citizens effort was the volunteer fire department started in philadelphia by benjamin in 1736. these americans are not like where i come from. it they complained about it for a day or two. him they just formed a new organization and then go do it. president roosevelt tapped this in 1933. this.ent johnson lost

in the 80's i was part of a wherecalled turning point he recommended that community service be a part of every middle school curriculum. that give30 states credit for community service toward high school graduation. i am proud to say the district of columbia and maryland required it thanks to kathleen kennedy townsend. president george w. bush, his points of light foundation still thrives. there has been a bipartisan spirit at the executive level on this issue. him one he left office my predecessor asked me to preserve points of life. when i left office i asked my successor to save americorps and

he increased it. and president obama was kind enough to invite me into thousand nine to the ceremony in which he and the late slip -- late senator edward kennedy promised to increase it again. i hope that congress will budgetder its opposition request and will give americorps a chance to grow some more. 4000 reasons this is a wonderful investment in america's future. 1.2 billion hours of public service, $2.7 billion in college scholarships, a return on investment of almost four dollars for every one dollar investment. the federal government and other governments avoid more than two dollars of expenditure for every dollar we invest and

every dollar we invest gets another dollar from some other organization. it is hard to find any program anywhere with those kinds of numbers. enough it may be the impact on people like our other speakers that is most important. volunteersicorps chose public service as a career. virtually three quarters of them continue to be regular weekly volunteers. what a difference you have made. i know this is a difficult time. i know americans pray for our president and our men and women in uniform that they are now undertaking.

this is no time to be pessimistic about america's future. look at the rainbow of diversity united to advance our common humanity. of our the secret future. even our solar and wind resources. until my last day on earth i chance grateful i had a to start americorps. thank you and god bless you. [applause]

>> president obama once said -- these words truly resonated with me because i know that the best of me is owed to my other -- to my mother. my mother was not able to finish the eighth grade and she had to work to support the family. emigrated from costa rica and moved to florida. my grandparents immigrated from the dominican republic to new jersey where my father was only two years old. he proudly served as a marine corps and worked with the local .nd federal court system my parents worked harder than anyone i know to insure the dreams my younger sister and i

. now i have the opportunity to serve as a public ally, and american core member with -- an americorps member with the ymca. to createbe helping an afterschool program for the young boys who want a better life in montgomery county. proud toot be more stand before you today. like our president i will get things done. [applause] please join me in welcoming president of the united states, president barack obama. [applause] >> hello, everybody. thank you, everybody.

thank you so much. thank you. everybody have a seat. welcome to the white house. give ivan a big round of applause for the introduction. thank you for sharing your story. you foro thank all of joining president clinton and me in celebrating this 20th anniversary of americorps. i want to thank the strong supporters of national service who are here today. who, as ack lew, clinton,e to president 20 years ago he helped to write the 20islation, creating year legacy. thank you for the great job.

she never runs out of energy and is reflective of the spirit of americorps. great job, wendy. former senator harris lawford and thereate vista peace corps. i don't know anybody who has had a greater legacy of creating community and helping people to channel their civic virtues. we are so proud of him. congressman john lewis. just when out and got a lot done, which is why i am standing here. david price. , the firsttin

americorps alum to be elected to the senate. everybody who is here who played andrt in creating sustaining americorps both in the clinton and bush administration and in congress and all the service leaders who mobilized and rallied over the years to keep americorps going, thank all of you for living a and engagedve citizenship because it has made america stronger. you have made america stronger for what you have done. clinton mentioned, not everyone who played an enormous role in this could be here today. eli segal did so much to get a corporation for national and community service up and running decades ago.

and a man whose extraordinary achievements live on because he never stopped asking what he could do for his country, ted kennedy. his name is on the law i signed five years ago expanding americorps. it was one of the big last public events he did. give the newll generation of americans more opportunities to give back to their country. teddy's wife vicki, as well as phyllis are here today as well. we thank you so much for everything you have done and for your support. as wendy mentioned all of you who are here as part of a national event, since yesterday hundreds of americans have taken part in service projects

in all 50 states. we have spent a few hours helping out the school hearing dcp in joe biden is down the street. today thousands of americans are taking a pledge. george bush's volunteering mirrored -- volunteering in maine. president george w. bush and laura bush has filmed the video that is being shot across the country. it echoes back to that day when president clinton swore in that first class of americorps members right here. some of the people here were in that class. of you may remember him saying you are starting a journey that would change your lives forever. americorps which range the life of the nation. it would give to the values that bind us together as americans.

that was a bold claim. he knew from his own life, as i know from mine, what service can do. a sense of common purpose that it cultivates. to join ourity fellow americans to work together for something other than just ourselves, for something bigger for the common good. he had high hopes on that bright september day. he was not the only one. he took the americorps pledge that day and then went to work for use harvest in texas, helping high school students improve their literacy skills. he is still a public service helping communities in new mexico. -- matthew went to work for boston.

he discovered a new source of .nspiration he has been an educator ever since. -- took the pledge that they. she says that americorps taught her that i can look at my country and make it different. i just wish it were different. eager woman break shared in the hope of that say two. nonprofit that trains young people for careers and service. soon after public allies received one of the first grants that americorps ever awarded. of that woman happens to live with me. her name is michelle obama.

obama household was on board with americorps from the start. for those of you who know my story i would not be standing here if it were not for the service to others. purpose that it gave my own life. steel plants have closed down and hope had dried up. i wasn't sure that i would be successful. if we didn't have a lot of funding. what i found was that patients and dedicated effort i could

make a difference. sometimes it is 20% and sometimes it is 50%. it turned out that you can nudge history forward. you can see the lives people have -- the lives of people you have cared about improving. then i found a community for myself. not just words on a page. not just rights and privileges but duties and responsibility. direction a sense of by how i wanted to live my life. of making a difference

-- it made me whole. it gave me center. it gave me a compass. that is going to happen to them. most of them are probably more sophisticated than i was at this time. that is why when i look out i can't describe how inspired i am. all of of you unfurling the incredible wonderful things you are going to be doing in your lives. 20 years after president clinton and sworn in that first americorps class come a more than 900,000 americans have learned the same lesson i have learned.

they come from all walks of life. emergencydone in relief in the aftermath of disasters. they have touched millions of lives. they have become more resilient and united. americorps has changed the life of our nation. now it is up to us to make sure it continues. the we are here to get things done. administration has been determined to build on the foundation that president bush,

president clinton and both president bush has laid. we've seen the outcome that americorps members reduce. improving the literacy in schools where they work. we are sure congress will fund this calling that has meant so much to so many and keep america strong. and we will keep doing our part. [applause] that is why i created a task force to expand and improve national service. we are creating new models of partnerships. we have reached out to the private sector. americorps is as effective today as it has ever been. we have created new americorps programs to address specific needs. for example, fema corps -- [applause] trains and deploys national service members to help communities recover from disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes. school turnaround americorps