nuclear weapons and play that against american foreign policy in the middle east, that would not be unique and nato, there are other countries with a similar profile, that is a wrinkle, a complication. they would have to do something to soothe american concerns about that. america would also presumably have concerns about what defense spending might be like in an independent scotland, because they are committed to maintaining a certain defense spending. there are pressures on the scottish government, and independent scottish government in its first year, that would push it to try and cut defense spending. everything the u.s. wants from nato this moment is to not have another country that is going to fall below the 2% mark. that is another tricky issue. spain is another possible stumbling brought -- black in nato as well. -- block in nato as well. i do not think that these

woodblock scotland from becoming a member of nato, but it will be a drawnout negotiation where things will not be as simple as they are being projected in the campaign. if you want to mention the u.n. issue that might come up, but the final element that i want to talk about is the currency issue, which has become one of the core issues of the campaign. issuethe most difficult that is going to face an independent scotland if we vote next -- yes next week. they have said that ultimately they would be a sensible compact between scotland and the rest of the u.k. to sort things out. i am not totally clear on that, i am skeptical on that. i think that this is a key issue because there is not real -- any real easy path for an independent scotland on the currency issue. -- thelay out the issues options that they would have, there would be the euro option. but that is not the preferred reasonfor the very basic

of the problems the euro has had in recent years. the other option would be to have scotland issue its own currency. mostwould give it its autonomy, giving it the best chance in the long run to have an independent, effective policy. establishing its own currency would be very complicated, very difficult. you have to establish credibility, build institutions, you would have lots of worries about this matches in liabilities and assets, currency risk. there is a real risk of economic turbulence in the short or medium term before scotland got to the stage of having a credible currency. but the -- there is the sterling sterlingization option, continuing to use the pound but not being a part of the arrangements in the u.k., similar to panama. that is technically possible, but there are lots of problems

with that. scotland are in the central bank, said to have a backstop for the banking system, they need to build up some reserve fund, which would mean cutting spending for a number of years in order to build up this fund at an economic cost to scottish welfare spending, effectively. it has not been discussed but that would be implicit. it is entirely understandable why the snp is putting all of its money on the option that they can stay a part of the currency union with the rest of the u.k.. we will vote for independence and we will renegotiate the terms. ideally,cotland would, have membership in the bank of england and become one of the shareholders, essentially, of the bank of england. and they would have access to all the facilities that the bank of england could offer, the

lender of last resort facilities, that that would offer to the broader scottish economy. from an independent scottish point of view that makes complete sense. all clear to me that that make sense for england and the rest of the u.k.. i think that for economic reasons and for political reasons. the economic reason would be that all of the risks, essentially, would be on one side. away to think about this is that if scotland got into trouble, if an independent scotland got into trouble, 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 a classic moral hazard, all the risks are on the english side. there is little reason that i could see for them to want to sign up for this kind of currency union, they are exposing themselves to risks if scotland were to run a different economic policy. it is a free ride on the back of

the stability that the bank of england could offer them. do aif they did decide to currency union, the price that they would ask for would be a very, very rigid fiscal rule. rules, essentially asking for bank of england regulation of the entire scottish financial system. and possible even the pooling of fiscal resources, so even though scotland would get control of revenues of the north sea oil, it would then have to make some of that money available back to the broader u.k.. that ation of that is notionally independent scotland under a currency union would not have a great deal of real autonomy, real independence in economic policy. again, that is something that has not really been -- in my time in scotland, that is not coming through in the argument as to what a currency union would mean for an independent scotland.

the establishment would ultimately want to do a deal between england and scotland, they would not want a crisis north of the border. politically, it is not clear to me that it would be possible for them to do so. will make you think about that is the following. the striking thing about this referendum is just how little angle and seems to care what is going on in scotland -- england seems to care what is going on in scotland. to go back to the last referendum, on the weekend before that, there were several hundred thousand people marching in the streets of montréal. canadians from outside of québec were asking correct to say. there have been -- were asking québec to stay. that is not a part of the debate here. in angling, the sentiment is the opposite, resentment. if you want to go, in words that i cannot use in the brookings institute. [laughter] it is not a polite atmosphere. an election some

time, certainly if they vote yes but in the next year. a seems to be impossible for non-scottish political party to get elected on a platform saying, yeah, we should do right scotts.cott -- i think they will demand tough conditions. from the english point of view, a currency union seems to be scotland saying that we want out but we want all the benefits of staying in. that is the way that it plays in english politics. and i do not think that is a politically sustainable argument. for both of those reasons, i am a little more pessimistic as to how it will play out, i giggled a complicated and difficult to not be the answer thascotland or the snp would like. pessimism,bit of these tight opinion polls are fantastic for generalists. this is a great story for my

newspaper. it seems to me to be a terrible outcome for scotland and britain. alternative, i am not saying that it is the wrong way 59 or 49ngs, but a result, that shows a divided country and a fragile political consensus in order to take a very, very big step. that is if they vote yes, but i think that it cuts off ways as well. it is not a ringing endorsement of the union. i think we are entering a. of political fragility and vulnerability or a lot of different things that mess it up. we will get into these things in the q&a. >> thanks geoff, i think one point that you left us with actually makes -- the united states is having this debate as well with our divisions internally between the different political parties seems quite mild, which is quite an

achievement. with that, i will turn it over to jeremy to give us a perspective on how things look from here in bc where we are all where we are d.c. all sitting. >> thanks, and thanks to all the anelists, i think geoff davis good view of what the presence of scotland would be on the international scene. what i would like to cover as with the u.s. government is thinking about the scottish referendum, and also how the u.s. would react if there is a yes vote. mentioned, juliet the u.s. does not really talk about this very much. talked about some concerns over specific issues, particularly nuclear issues, but have not really taken a position on, or at least an official position 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, sally say, for the united states to do so. [laughter] but it is impolite. and i think that it is in general a principal for the u.s. to not do that sort of thing, particularly for allies which it recognizes have a legitimate system and are engaged in a legitimate process. again is for a clear on the u.s. side that that is what is going on, for better or for worse. of course, the united states have an opinion. i think they recognize that stating that opinion is not always very helpful to promoting it. the u.s. weighed in semi-accidentally, i think, on the question of british membership in the european union a year or two ago and it created a firestorm in britain.

one of the things that it did was that it aligned both sides -- it turned out that both sides cared very much what the u.s. out, and it became a lightning rod. i think that they have, since that time, taken the approach that they cannot actually what the u.s.ell wading into the debate will even do in terms of public opinion. so it is best to stay out of it. i think that is reinforced by the sentiment that was already mentioned that the scots are adverse to being told what to do, particularly by americans. that despite the absence of opinion, we can make a fairly educated guess about what the u.s. government thinks. is a statustates quo power, i think that is a thing we forget when we talk about crises and u.s. action,

but in fact, as the leader of the world, there is a strong bias toward stability in u.s. foreign policy and a strong bias against secession of any sort. quossion is, for a status power, nearly a complete collapse of policy. the united states is not entirely consistent in this regard. xhosa vote comes quickly to mind, and there are other examples -- kosovo comes quickly to mind. if you look at u.s. policy, they saw to avoid an idea that there was a precedent set towards secession, that there was any right of secession i provinces. i think that that view is reinforced in this particular case because the u.s. sees this as two of its best friends divorcing. and that is never a joyful experience. i think, though, that even

beyond that general principle, of the status quo power, there are real issues in the united states. some have been alluded to already but i will go over them or directly from a u.s. perspective. i think that a critical one is the idea of a weakening of a key u.s. ally, the u.k. from theis clearly, u.s. perspective, a very active, very effective ally. there are precious few of those these days. , ine is a general view that the tumble that has been , theibed after a yes vote u.k. or what remains of it would turn inward as it negotiates the exit of scotland. it would be more likely to get out of the european union in the punitive referendum in 2017, which would further shrink british influence and british activism in the world. there is also a view that scottish exit would put greater

pressure on the british defense budget and the british armed forces. and overall this might mean that the u.k. would not be able to play the kind of lead role in nato that it has traditionally. related to this, i think that there is a fear of a weakening of nato and the eu. the eu would turn inward yet again, as i had to negotiate the it had to negotiate the question of secession in general and scottish entry in specific. because it would make a british exit more likely, that is the arc for that. sorry, i have just been at a very long conference about that. saidgets at what the u.s. when they took a position against rich exit from the european union. looking for a strong

britain within a strong european union. it is clear that a scottish exit begins that strong britain and british exit from the european union weakens the european union. for nato, i think that, contrary to what has been said, this is less about the nuclear deterrent than about demonstrating weakness and disunity at a 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's trip to estonia, ec a strong see ao assert -- you strong urge to assert nato strength in the face of the russian threat. of one of its members, a key member, breaking up. and then the type of government

that was described taking over in scotland and all of the difficult negotiations over nato. that does not really appealed to the united states at this critical moment in dealing with russia. i think that -- while i will get to that a little bit later. i think that the third reason that the u.s. would be against this is the question of precedent. fiona mentioned, the leader of the crimea has already mentioned scottish independence as a precedent for what he would like to do. we have also heard expressions of this justice morning on npr. of domesticsident saying, scotland can do it, why can't we. that will be an increasingly hard question to answer.

this also spreads across the eu, into spain and other key u.s. allies that could well face this question. a piece aboutve this that i think we distributed out front that talks about the and thet that this sets difficulties that might cause for the european union. so what will the u.s. do in the case of a yes vote? is always a fair bet, in the face of a dramatic international developments, that the united states will urge calm. [laughter] i think that that will be the first reaction. what that really means is that they well, broadly, accept the outcome. urging, in 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 to minimize the disruption that i talked about that they fear. think, quietly and do some extent from behind the scenes, push for eu/nato membership for scotland on reasonably fair terms. implied,l be, as geoff very, very hard negotiations on the nuclear deterrent, but i do think that they are ultimately looking for a solution. they would certainly prefer a weak member of nato to a nonmember. ,here are, as was mentioned which of nato members have romantic anti-american notions, particularly about the nuclear deterrent. this fits into a wider debate. the united states will welcome a

they wouldt i think prefer it to a nonmember, an irish solution. the key is that it has to be a 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, donnesck. the way that they will do that is by emphasizing the mutual decision nature, that this was agreed by both sides, and that was the critical feature which allows this type of referendum and this type of separation. it must be agreed, both by the region that is holding the referendum and by the state in which the region belongs. and they will say that this is totally different from the

ukraine or the breakaway provinces of georgia where this is under dispute. i think, also, and some more speculatively, 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, it is not clear how waiting in will really in will help.ing but they will have the president of not weighing in. the united states does not make the same the state twice, they make a different mistake. [laughter] i think we will see them play a more active role, the argument that they will use is that because they have a stake in british membership in the european union, just as, for example, a country like britain

would have a stake in the united membership in nato, they have every right to -- to weigh in. they will make their opinion much more known in scotland votes yes. >> thank you jeremy. obviously we have a lot of issues here, and we only have half an hour left, so i would like to bring in you, the audience. i can see already a lot of questions. people in the audience have a stake in this issue. maybe threeke questions right away, we have microphones which will come out in just a second, and then i will come back to our panel to ask them to comment on the questions. questionsns -- two immediately. in the back, let me know at your questions, to. hugo, i speak for

myself as a british expatriate englishman. oceans word at this point is potentially not that helpful -- an englishman's word at this point is potentially not that helpful. i want to take up the idea that englishman do not care about this issue, i would hate to leave the audience with this impression. if you look at twitter, you see the day of national unity from outside the borders, from outside of scotland coming next wednesday. you also see, and i recommend it very strongly, forgive me for getting slightly emotional on this matter, "the spectator" magazine launched a campaign for people outside of scotland writing in personal words what -- about why it is that they would want the scottish people to vote to stay in the united kingdom. that is all that i would have to

say, other than my question, obeying the rules, it has been suggested that perhaps it would be less an urgent situation in terms of what would happen afterwards. ,f the referendum has not shown and the campaign amongst it, eelinghere is a wide f of disenfranchisement in scotland and england in wales, and it is urgent that there is some sort of constitutional settlement, not just in scotland but more widely in the event of innovaro. -- of a no vote. thank you. >> independent. can you relate everything that you said in the situation to ireland? first of all, could there be and ireland/northern ireland situation where a part would stay with the u.k.? and would ireland and scotland have better relations because they might end up using the euro , or could there even be a

closer drawing of ireland to the u.k. because it is now a club that is relatively bigger. >> and you. -- thank you. panel for this marvelously instructive survey. i regret the absence on the panel of the elegant governor of texas, the honorable rick perry, who has some views on secession as well. everybody knows -- >> can you speak a little closer to the might, i am not sure that the cameras are picking it up. >> ok, i regretted the absence of rick perry from the panel. everybody knows that an angle thereetropolitan england,

is a disproportionate role in the leadership of cultural institutions. one wonders about the composition, the social composition, age composition, also, maybe even religious composition of the two parties, the yes and no block, and scotland. is there a class gradient of some kind? it appeared so from some of the discussions one the saw on the television, but it would be good to know something about the social composition of the opposing parties. thank you very much. >> thank you for all of these questions, we will come back again. , i would liketion to talk about a little bit, because many of the meetings we have had in brookings, this has been one of the issues that has confused people from the outside. referendum isnd's framed in terms of civic

nationalism, other people are trying to grasp who are the people on either side in terms of how they are identifying themselves. issues of identity have not been put on the table here, but they have come up on many other issues. jezaniah talked about this, and i think this panel reflects it. geoff and i talked about this, and i think this panel reflects this. they arell themselves from england originally but are living in scotland, is from scotland and living in the u.s. this is representative of a larger u.k. entry. the history of the united kingdom is one of constant migration. effortsy the previous at national self-determination of scotland were really founded on the fact that people identify themselves ethnically or culturally as scots to carry the day. basedp platform has been on this idea, that it is the

resident of scotland -- residents of scotland, however they identify themselves. this issue of identity remains important. out, as shipplay is trying to suggest, and anglicans -- in angle and, and as hugo said, people in and linda do care about this. -- in england do care about this. there is also a larger issue that i would like to put out as you think about responding to this, about the identity of britain and british identity. the united kingdom is a rather anodyne description for the country that is great britain. great britain is not the official name, but everybody talks about it. wales, and england, as well as northern ireland.

that is obligated because united kingdom is a country of emigration, and many people have come from outside of the british isles and are wondering how they will identify themselves on september 19, depending on what is happened, as well. there are all kinds of identity, bulgarians, many of the members of the british partner -- parliament come from somewhere else. we are parliament members from germany or portugal. how do they identify themselves? or the south asian community in great britain. these are issues that did not come out in the panel, but they have been part of a debate in one way or another, and i wanted to get our catalyst to comment on this. these are great questions, thank you. >> yes, thank you very much for the questions. i will try and tackle at least some of them. one of my areas of personal research interests is what do

the english think. i have done quite a bit of survey work in angle and, and i land, and i canng endorse your comments that the english do care. in april, we found 19% of people whongle and -- in england thought that scotland should be an independent country, a large majority that do not think that. however, more in-line with the geoff was saying, if scotland does so yes, what we know from the survey is that people in england would be quite strongly in support of a tough line in negotiations toward scotland. stay, butotland to if they decide to go, a backlash. when i said no urgency, that was not really no urgency, i think there would be a great danger of the u.k. political system

thinking, we have sorted that, we have done that, let's move on. no, think that if we vote and more stable set of constitutional arrangements for all parts of the u.k. would be a strong priority. who is voting yes and no? there are some clear patterns which are quite interesting. men are more likely to vote yes than women. younger people, except the very youngest, generally more likely to vote yes in older people. people from disadvantaged communities clearly more likely to vote yes than people from more affluent communities. and then the national identity question. one of the best predictors we have of voting intention is around those people who feel primarily british in scotland. it does not work so well on the

other side, those people who feel primarily scottish, this does not lead directly or so directly to supporting a yes vote. there is a territorial dimension to that. a poll was released from the scottish borders this morning we showed two thirds in favor in remaining in the u.k. there would be territorial differences between the different parts of scotland. i do not think that is going to lead to a kind of irish partition situation. i think that, given that level of voter registration, even that likely level of turnout, -- given that likely level of turnout, the formal rules, i think we will have sufficient legitimacy. >> thank you. juliett? >> i will answer a couple of questions quickly so we can get more from the audience.

of identity, parlay, being an outsider, i have been struck at how the ethnic identity has not been a part of the debate very much. it has been a functional, political debate about policy preferences on foreign policy and health care and spending issues. way that thek the electorate has been defined in terms of residency has taken away some of that, although some of us cannot vote even though we are resident there. on the question of ireland, it is interesting. ireland has look more towards than it in this debate looks toward supporting scotland and independence. and scotland has not really reached out to think about cultivating scottish/irish inactions -- connections. they're looking more towards the

nordic countries and thinking about the connections there, the arctic circle and the north sea. those countries have largely stood on the sidelines, too, and this debate, not just after the referendum, but, in the case of a yes vote, in negotiations, they will wait to take up the offer of scotland to be partners. >> thanks. geoff? >> i think that the identity question is really interesting, because i people of mention, it is not formally a part of the debate at, it is not on the table. but it is absolutely the underlying fabric of the debate, i think. which is that scottish identity has shifted in the decades. one is that there is a strongly held view on the part of scott's that it is a different place, different school system, different legal system, the first banks.

-- different banks. that the one country in the world that we share the most which is angle and -- with is england. in the last few decades the scottish bit of identity has become stronger for various reasons. the reasons that bind the u.k. together have declined. it was founded on the empire, in a sense, which was one thing that kept the scots interested in the u.k. for a long time. settlement, the memories of the world wars, fighting against fascism, the trade union movement was another powerful thing that bound them together. then the experience of the thatcher years, when something broke in the scotland, the sense in scottish society that margaret thatcher had broken up the checks and balances in the u.k., the political grammar of how the u.k. worked. all of these have played out over the last couple of decades

to give scotland a much stronger sense of identity then i had. although that is not officially on the platform, that is one of the driving forces behind what got us to this stage. globalization and individualism have created an environment in which people do retreat into tribal identities. if you go to a wedding in scotland these days, all the men of my fathers generations, in the 60's and 70's, were wearing suits. under aren 50 and wearing kilts. is not in the manifesto but it is absolutely key to understanding what is going on. to respond if you go, all i would say is that originally, i generally hope that you are right, what he is saying about the groundswell of anguish opinion trying to make the case for scotland to say. i think that your traps and leaving it a little bit late --

you have been believing it a little bit late. >> i do not think he means you personally. [laughter] you have anything to say? >> on your point about general disenfranchisement, i think that is an important point. i make in the piece that i referred to, that was scotland phrased asng is anti-english, but it is more, if you think about it, and i london -- anti-london. and expresses the frustration is a lot of the hinterlands of northern england, wales, a lot allther areas -- actually, the areas of the kingdom outside of the metropolitan areas in the south about feel about the english government. the disenfranchisement that they feel from the city, the cultural

distance that is being created by the very different evolutions of london and the rest of the united kingdom. what the identity of scotland language, as a vocabulary, and an institutional platform to express that disenfranchisement that the rest of the united kingdom does not really have. and so that is why we see this disenfranchisement coming forward most clearly and most mostly in scotland -- loudly in scotland. and it is a problem in the united kingdom, and i think that it is a yes or no that the united kingdom should deal with urgently. i would share some of the pessimism that they really wel -- will. >> i think that geoff, many of the british newspapers have pointed out that the divides

within the united kingdom and within london itself, whether the sense of the disenfranchisement from the rest of the u.k. and london, london itself is also a divided polity. one of the features of the thatcher era was the evolution of the greater london, which was very much in into the left of government. when of the battles of that. area bank was margaret thatcher fighting with the leader of the london council. they want a certain amount of self-determination, so i think that the issue will take on some interesting dimensions as we move forward. i think that thesnp will be telling us about them. i would like to get questions in the back, because people have been waiting seriously. please identify themselves -- yourselves. >> what is the impact on it businesses like pensions and nk if the scottish people

vote yes, and what is the impact on the economy considering that many scottish people are dependent on the u.k. for social welfare, social security, and other benefits? >> thank you. hi, i am with public radio in barcelona. my question is, do you think that people should have the right to decide their own fate? as a general matter, we had 2 million people demonstrated in bart -- barcelona yesterday, but as you know the spanish government does not allow the catalan vote to go ahead. as a general matter, do you think that any people should have the right to determine their own fate? >> there's a question from the gentleman standing right behind you. >> thank you very much, i am charles.

i would not want people to think that my accent reflects bias. i have a methodological question for the panel. it seems like most of the organizations have published polls, but quite often the press has recalculated the polls to reflect an absolute confrontation between yes and no. i saw the brookings succumb to this tendency. know, the know has quite a big proportion of ae poll, surprisingly big for referendum that takes place next week, i think that 20%, approximately. i wonder the panel could comment on this and give some indication of if they think the hesitant voters will vote yes or no. juliett r and in surveyk -- are

work, so they will respond. that is standard practice when you're predicting elections, to get rid of the don't knows and report figures without them. but it does raise the question of what way they are leaning. different pollsters are reporting different levels of don't know, it depends on the calling method. in face-to-face polling, people get more don't knows, i think people are reluctant, face to face, to give their opinion. the picture we have had from some academic survey research, which is using the same panel of ,otes at different time points which is perhaps the most reliable evidence that we have, is that between the two type points, which were earlier this year and then in the early summer, don't knows were breaking towards yes. of 25 to 18, 4 to

three. that is one of the things we have been seeing in the tightening of the polls, it is difficult to say. i wanted to take the opportunity to come back to geoff and clarify. i am skeptical that there would be a formal currency union. and i am sorry if you thought that i was sent -- that that was what i was saying. i do think that the sites on the today have become quite polarized, and the no side has partso definitive, and so -- some parts have gone beyond that and saying that the next u.k. manifesto was saying that we will not have a currency union, that it will be hard to move away from that position. when i was suggesting was that there would be an interest in a stabilization process, most likely around and informal use ing by an independent

scotland. perhaps we have seen the first stages of that stabilization process in the announced an's of of all theuncements major banks in scotland saying that in the event of a yes vote they would move their headquarters, and not necessarily their activities, to london, so that there would be a lender of last resort. that is one way of managing some of those transitional issues. that both point was sides, including the u.k., which would be bearing uncertainty around currency, uncertainty around continuity of business for many firms headquartered in the rest of the u.k., would have an interest in stabilizing, in reassuring, in saying it is all going to be ok.

i'm not sure if i coined the phrase or somebody else wrote it and i just absorbed it for myself. plusdea of sterlingozation some stabilization arrangements seems a more likely outcome than currency union. >> thank you. juliet? >> that may take the catalonian question at the back and use it as a platform to come back to something jeremy was talking about on precedent and secession. there is a strong international norm for people to have the right to decide who governs them. the principle of national self-determination is not always obeyed, not always supported by outside groups, but it is a strong and ever-growing normative power in the international system, it is what you see outside actors, even if

they are against scottish independence or have worries or concerns about the implications, are not interfering, are staying on the sidelines, are not making public comments on this. i think that this concern about the spillover of scottish independence to other secessionist movements is sometimes exaggerated. i was at a very good conference about this one at glascow university last year. experts onin secession movements and how they relate to each other, the research shows that they do not domino effect. in a be that other secessionist movements use an instance as a president to push their case, but that is not very successful. the results of secessionist movements are determined more by local factors rather than what is happening next door or across the world. that secessionist

movements around the world will probably use the scottish independence referendum in their movements for secession, regardless of the outcome of a referendum. and i think that there is a clear difference. this is the case of a mutual decision by westminster government and the edinburgh government to allow this to happen. and this is a fully democratic process, without any real conflict. ,hich is quite an amazing thing and quite a unique thing in international history. >> geoff? >> i will take the economic question, if i may. it is divided between short-term impacts and long-term impacts. the short-term impact is of uncertainty, because it will create a huge number of questions about the future arrangements with the country. that can have economic impacts. you may see pension fund moving

south of the border. we can imagine people withdrawing money from scottish banks as they start to get worried about future arrangements. charlie,ely agree with there will be a very strong self-preservation institutional movement on both sides of the ,order to try and overcome that to try and stop the uncertainty from causing big disruptions in the economy. the medium-term outlook really depends on what sort of currency arrangements the independent scotland ends up having. in my reading, most of them would involve a new scottish government having to enforce a. of austerity to build -- a area period ofsterity -- a austerity. the wildcard would be the oil, an independent scottish government would have revenue from oil, a high oil price would counteract that.

the oil price would really defined whether scotland could keep spending that money in the medium-term. in the short-term it is about uncertainty, and that is a big issue at the moment. >> thanks. charlie? >> i will unwisely weigh in on the self-determination question. the norm of self-determination is one in which the rhetoric of states is always exceeded -- has always exceeded the practice. is very common for states to get the rights of self-determination, but actually if you look at the history of the thing, it has always been clearly and consistently limited in the sense that people have a right to self-determination, but they do not have a right to determine the size and the scope of the political community over which that self-determination runs. forso it is not legitimate

the brookings institution to suddenly decide that it wants to be an independent country, bow to do so, and secede from the united states, though occasionally we have considered it. [laughter] this is the issue on which the u.s. civil war was fought. a quite clearly determined that even if there is a right to self-determination, there is not necessarily a right to secession, especially a secession that is not agreed by the larger political community. that has been a fairly strong , although practice there are exceptions, even since the rise of the self-determination movement after world war i. >> thanks, i want to bring in a last set of questions. there is a gentleman standing at the back, a gentleman by the cameras, and a lady at the front. i'm sorry to everybody else, it is that these people have had

their -- please. the gentleman is in the handy cameras as well. >> my name is kevin, and i am an intern at brookings. if i understood correctly, i heard that if scotland gains its independence, england will not have enough power and influence to play a prominent role in nato. what does this mean for the united nations? future, and if ireland gained its independence, dould angle and -- would englan be kicked out of the position it enjoys in the united nations and be replaced by an emerging power like terminate or brazil -- germany or brazil? >> the gentleman behind the camera, please, and then the lady in the front. >> i am with the european news. i covered the referendum campaign two decades ago in voted by ftquébec

%, something like that, to stay in canada. since then, this issue has disappeared in canada. the question is, is colin votes no buyer similar outcome, are we going to see the next referendum next year, in two years, or will the issue fade away? thank you. >> this lady here. >> thank you. i am taking, i am a congressional reporter for "hispanic outlook." i have read a lot about immigration. in the immigration debate, when people talk about nationalism, there is a connotation of xenophobic and anti-immigrant, but i am not hearing that in this conversation. i went to a political conference two weeks ago,

international, and european scholars told me that the whole concept of multiculturalism is dead now in europe. people do not talk about it. i'm wondering if the debate is more about a government versus small government -- big government versus small government. that the huge multicultural governments like london just cannot identify to the many, they do not feel that they can control it. again, multiculturalism, xenophobia, the government versus small government. those are good last questions, unfortunately we do not have a lot of time, there are a crowd of people outside of the door. i hope that they are not demonstrating, i think that there is another event. i will get last words from our panelists for my charlie. -- panelists, charlie. recently aid have government led by the pro-independence party which was hoping to secure sufficient support to move towards a

further round of constitutional discussion, so i do not think things are over in québec. if is a novo, i do not think that they would be over in scotland. alex has said that this is a once in a generation issue. i suspect that the definition of generation could be reasonably flexible depending on how other events go. votesample, if scotland no, and the u.k. as a referendum on eu membership, which has a u.k. wide majority to leave, but a scottish majority within the u.k. to stay, adding that his terrain which is -- i think that is a shortrain which political generation away which could revive the debate. i believe the other questions for others. -- let me talk about the immigration, it has not been a part of the scottish national

at all, they promise a more liberal immigration policy than the u.k. had. you have seen the tensions within the united kingdom and more broadly that jeremy spoke of, london versus the rest were divisions within london, scotland can maybe be seen in the independence referendum and the rest of the u.k., the rise of more and i immigrant populist parties. -- anti-immigrant populist parties. i think that a smaller u.k. after a yes vote would raise more questions about whether the u.k. has the right to be represented on the un security council. those questions are already raised, and the door is already open with no simple solutions in sight. -- itot see that it would would add to the call, but i do not think it would provide more answers. the day after a yes vote,

india would be out to say it is time to reform the u.n. the logic for reforming the security council has been powerful for a long time, and it has not happened. consensuso organize between the members, and that is never impossible. i think it would be more possible after a referendum vote. even if the national side loses, they have absolutely made a powerful case that there is a strong groundswell of support for independence in scotland. if they lose, they will not get 30%, they will get 45, 49%. the issue will be back on the agenda, sooner than you might imagine. >> thanks, geoff, jeremy, any last words? we will refrain from trying to tip the scales. i hope that nothing we have said

here will tip the outcome one way or another. we all know how inadvertently one kid way into a debate and make a mess of it -- can weigh intuitive a and make a mess of it. we hope that your magic touch that we have educated on the key issues. we are a week ahead of these momentous events. i hope that everybody will be watching this very closely. , you you for participating and the audience, and this part is a bit ash in this discussion today. -- in this discussion today. thank you very much. [applause]

>> talks about the president's plan for defeating isis in iraq and syria. as always we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal live at 7:00 .m. eastern. former virginia governor jim gilmore said we are at war with terrorist. he defended the n.s.a. and the

government's able to track information in the debate for national security vs. personal privacy. from steamboat institute's annual freedom conference in colorado, this is just under an hour. ♪ >> we have governor gilmore and governor crist -- kirk. i had a perfect opening and i completely fudged it. there you go in order to discuss these issues. i've got these two fine

gentlemen. i'm going to give them each a 10-minute opener. then i'll have a series of questions. they'll have 10 minutes apiece with a one-minute rebuttal. they will have a chance to close. with that i give you governor james gilmore. >> thank you. >> well, thank you very much. i've seen a lot of you know i was a prosecutor in my local county, so i've been a courtroom as a defense well

counsel. i was the attorney general and governor and chairman of the republican national committee. so everybody here now knows i lawyer, a politician and a party leader. good, soher habits are let me talk about that a little bit. of the board of of -- i was the chairman of the advisory panel on home security for the united states at the the congress for five years. to 2002. and that was over the time of was9/11 attack, and i governor of virginia during the

9/11 attack. is a water shed, we all know that, but it was a issue.rious i'll try to keep to my 10 but this is a complex subject. during the 9/11 attack, i was concerned about the reaction to the 9/11 attack in the united states. btion, the congress of the united states and the people of the united states were all for security and about it i was nervous at that time. i was trying to give a you looked atf the letter i wrote to the congress, i said one of the things we needed to do was to protect democracy and individual liberties, it's paramount to achieving the ultimate victory. and that protection of individual liberties was the game. i don't feel any differently

about that today. my i will tell you that concerns are even greater today as far as the safety of this they werees than then. it's a very serious issue. the threat is much more serious now than it was at the time of in 2001.attack you can't go into your hotel television,n on the can you? without looking at what's going the james foley beheading with what's going on isis. the threat is now more dangerous than the cold war him because both state threats and you have nonstate threats. now we have a dual problem we have to confront as the united states of america, what are the state threats. iran wants to have a nuclear bomb and seems determined to get it. want to seee do not the united states at war with iran. if they are our choices

insist on getting a nuclear bomb. we going to let them get one, and then egypt and saudi then all these nukes, not to mention israel all there this volatileof area. the chinese want to change the status quote, they consider the china sea now a core interest. the russians, we're all familiar that. my old friend the russians, as are now 18,000 troops on thiskrainian border instant. what happens if they decide they ukraine andhe decide a year from now that the want to be their next victim. two problemsthe we're facing. the other is the nonstate actors us, most famously in al qaeda and against the rise of isis. forget the criminal

drug cartels on the southern border. these are people that belong to observe no rules except that they have certain rules of their own. this country and spend almost nothing and cause of dollars trillions in response. have we not been doing that? long can that go on before the democracy of the united states collapses? fact that they attacked their primary mission is to attack civilians? do they do that? because they want to undermine states'le of the united confidence in their own country and in their own government. what little confidence the the united states have, the enemy seeks to further so that forms oreturn to other at worst isolationism. we have people in our own party who advocate this kind of now.ack right at the center of the potential

attack against this country is clandestine operations. danger that an attack can happen from secret cells and people in this country who might this country or even attack our allies. nation,een it in this we saw it in a first trade center attack, then another trade center attack. seen it in the you our allies' countries and the goal civilians and to undermine our confidence in the ability of our state to protect citizens. when i developed 10 points that i believe are a strategy i'm not going over them, you may be relieved, but i may in the morning. i'm going to speak at the for a few minute and i want to go over those. but one of those points is that a nation build upon our advantages. advantages, the high technological and scientific advantage that we with theticularly

n.s.a. to tell you, that the loss of our technological toantage to be able understand what the enemy is doing, where they are, what they theirinking and what plans are, the loss of that would be catastrophic to this country and to the safety of country. and that is the danger that we face. i think that the arguments that are being made that say to be drawn.a. has back in the name of privacy present us, in my view, with a false choice. our goal in this country is not to the choice of or security. our job as americans and the thisenge of leadership of country is to achieve both. not false choices. not easy to do. the simple approach is to go all security and spy on everybody, total -- to have

that is a false choice. think there are ways that we can reform our plans and our operations in order to protect the privacy of the american people and at the same advantage,in our because i close with this comment. at war. a long, long war. it. no mistake about and i say to you that we need presidential leadership right now that understands the dangers that we face, the challenges how to thwart these false challenges, and the ability to save our country in long war ahead. we need that kind of presidential leadership which means we need a change in the house. thank you very much.

>> thank you, it's nice to be here. i want to congratulate everyone today. by takenning this conference you've earned yourself an i.r.s. congratulations. ( laughter ) you can be expecting that early year. the governor and i had a wonderful discussion in wowed look forward to continuing that dialogue. knowot going to pretend to everything about that agency, nor do people even working in it all about it. it's so complex and there are so goy unknowns that we have to in understanding that this agency, we have to take a step back and talk more about the philosophical beliefs behind it and have a discussion about that. i'm going to ask everyone a question here and i think you're going to maybe reconsider some

n.s.a.thoughts of the imagine lois lerner running the n.s.a., imagine that for a second. we're living in a culture with an administration and a government that uses agencies like the i.r.s., weaponnized cities like you. we're -- that's right, it's true. clap, but i could i've been targeted by the i.r.s. and i'm sure many of you have as well. in a culture and climate why no matter what there is evidence of collusion of interagency conspiracy against citizens. catherine was a citizen from a nonprofitrted agency, was visited by five different federal agencies in of months, audited by three them, taxed by all five and they said oh, we're not talking to each other. when the atf and epa and visit you, you're trying

to tell me they're not including? we're talking about the n.s.a. which is probably the most powerful and most intrusive arm the department of defense, which really for, until edward snowden's actions has gone relatively unchecked. most americans didn't even no edwards.a. meant before snowden did what he did. trillionings of lines of data have been accumulated and stored in banks in utah and data banks room.every person in this and i would like to venture a guess that with this haveistration what we seen, the track record of the abuse of power, we all know what's going on there. want to wield that kind of unchecked power to lois lerner ore that i.r.s. guy that got in a debate with paul ryan? asked him, sir, why didn't you tell us that he deleted the e-mails, he said, you never asked me. are those the people you want running federal agencies that are able to collect trillions of

debt.of the enemy is isis, and the enemy islamicnational global jihad. i would agree with him on that. bureaucratsernment don't view those oh as the only enemy. they view the enemy as people with what they believe in. we can see what happened in the i.r.s. where they thought conservatives were the enemy, that tea party groups were the enemy, that republicans were the enemy. so we have to say hold on a second, if we're going to use losely what does the wore enemy mean to an employee who.a. can tap without warrant every person in this room, every phone e-mail, text message, unchecked without warrant. do we want to give that kind of to people that we know agenda.ubversive there was a wonderful quote by benjamin franklin, he

said those who sacrifice liberty neither.ity deserve and i truly believe that. we have to, in many different instances, ask conservatives, should we give all this agency that an before edward snowden released it most of us did not even know existed. governor gilmore did, but he dealt with a lot these deeper complex issues. one last thing, if you look at the mission statement of the and the hernstitute i tanl foundation, there are two words thrown around a lot, freedom and liberty. another phrase, limited government. left, they have no qualms growing government. were thaw complaining when conservatives were weaponnized and targeted by the i.r.s.? no. we have to as conservatives lead the abuse ofainst power, and we have to, we have

opponents toal unchecked federal bureaucrat andw for the warrantless illegal and constitutional violating, wiretapping of citizens. and we as conservatives have to it's.se vocal oh point myself at 20 years old considering how much i tweet and post, 'all those text messages, if barack obama wanted an enemy of the n.s.a., look right here. n.s.a. is probably the most powerful agency we've ever seen, pretend it going to know everything. but we have to ask ourselves one question. do you trust the federal government and do you trust the people running it. thank you. [applause] >> charlie, i have always loved that quote about people who are

willing to exchange security for liberty. but i also agree with the governor that it's a bit of a false line. of libertyquestion or security. it's where we put that line. is there a country out there it right?ng that has that balance correct. how would you propose that we two things?e >> well, i have actually used franklin benjamin line, at seapac once before in a debate. i knew ben franklin, franklin mine.friend of he's no james madison. was.lly he probably but the point is that i thought about this question quite a bit got here. i don't think that it's really useful for us to examine other countries out there, because another one of our principles we is that america is exceptional. we all are. there are people today who say not. there are people who say we're

not exceptional. exceptional. because of exactly the conference that we had this with lynn cheney where she talked about the historical founding fathers. the touch stones that americans have. therefore we draw the line differently, and the challenge for us is that much greater. we are much more careful about of liberties we give up than other people in other countries. is not to the duty worry about with a other countries do but to worry about what we do. remember what the fast is -- able to do. to interseptember kea -- interseptember

these are useful things, as we do make policy. are technological advantages, we americans have nobody else in the world has. like us toould become paranoid, the enemy would us to become distrustful. the enemy would like us to throw this advantage away. that they can get on a level playing feel with us. advantages that have been built because of the superior state and the superior the superior system that we have that has enabled us more sophisticated and therefore able to defend our people better. one on thed to no bases of saying that we have to

protect privacy, and i believe i'll pointone, and at several things here. we have had failings of n.s.a. oversight. congress has muz raably failed toover see the n.s.a. there. are congressmen today who look forward -- they are saying bravo, we're on your side congress, because we want to bring your country down. duty of us and people like us here at steam boat to make sure that that doesn't happen. the fisa courts, who is overseeing them? they don seem to be doing a good job, or at least they've lost the confidence of the the united states, so we need to find ways to make sure they are properly overseen. criminal law, anyone who goes in as charlie suggests and used this information to spy upon american citizens inappropriately and to let that

information out in any improper way and to look at our pictures, our private letters and then make that available, should be to the most stringent criminal penalties. we need to put people in prison that do that type of thing and let people know that we will twoabl do it. and finally the executive president has been woefully inadequate in the n.s.a.,t of the therefore it creates the tub for debate like this, and be suspicious of our government. last.that that can't we have to regain our confidence in ourselves, but we do that election process. >> i agree in a large part of said especially where you we are in other countries, you look at germany and france, they don't have a constitution with a fourth amendment that protects live sit and liberty the way that we do. don't have a provision that

unreasonablem searches and seizures. because of that we should focus our own paradigm. the conversation i think we should talk about is not as much spying on karzai or international, but should we be citizens.american because i think the premise of the debate is, does it matter that the government stores every text and phone that we send. now some people in government terrorists, but i couldn't call anyone here terrorists, but does it matter the nment s.a. listens to us, and i would say absolutely. goes warrantless, unchecked, and i agree that congress has of done a good job overseeing this agency. i would venture a guess that a didn'ty of represents even know what the n.s.a. was, that's because it was this under agency that just operated and they see they're the agency that keeps us safe. that we openrtant this dialogue and that we have

to hold our elected officials do youable and ask them think it's okay for the n.s.a. to go completely unchecked, wiretaps, and we need to start that dialogue and conversation. because if we're going to respect the constitution and be the movement of liberty and haveed government, then we theo back to our roots with fourth amendment. >> if i could just add something to that. of whatthe reality we're looking at right now. the n.s.a. has enormous capacity very sophisticated computers to be able to get information. what they're getting, not to overseasll the information, but they are getting information that says who is calling who. i don't have the ability to look at those phone cause, not without a warrant. but, if someone from let's say into chicago,es they have the ability to know

that. point they aret in fact hooking around and how the other people are that that particular phone number might be talking to. and then at that point they can gather their evidence and say this is interesting enough to go a the fisa court and seek warrant. i think what we have to guard of all thethe first 4th amendment is not just a blanket. but looking at your private conversationings and your information in your cell phones and like that, that should be the fourthy amendment. in the interested government spying on having our citizens do. at the reality is we have technological advantage over the would lochands they us to throw it away, because we're frankly suspicious and paranoid. lot ofe has been a debate whether or not these people do store these things for a long storm between u.s.

citizens, edward snowden made a he wase did, others said mistaken, which is why what i have called for a complete forensic congressional examination of how far have they gone with u.s. citizens. you would agree, governor gilmore, that it's ofessary information members both parties to do a complete examination of how you tree u.s. citizens. stored, and if it beg stored who has access to it and why. we need to get all the factthat, because edward phonen did say that every call has been stored between as. citizens, but this is debate about that among the intelligence community. >> we know from the case of that he may have radicalizedd by a member of the u.k., a british citizen. always a case of bad guys for overseas, for all may have bad guys

here in our own population. knowing much. of how do we track those kids without tracking the rest of us? >> seems to me you have to have the that says that we're going to focus in on people that reasonablee suspicion may be a person that is involved in that kind of conduct. the enemy, al qaeda, the isis people, would be a big advantage could put somebody in somecountry that could do type of attack. it's not unheard of, is it, that they were not necessarily representatives of anybody, but what i want to respond to is the significance of it is very material. could just get one guy in here with a bomb, a sue case worse yet, with a the nuclear proliferation, if you could get a serious bomb

into this country, you could americans think about themselves and at that couldthe security state indeed arise. we have to protect ourselves against that while at the same privacies asng our well him this is the challenge nonstate asymmetric type of warfare. they want to attack citizens, the wayt to change americans think about themselves and think about our liberties. attackse the kind of that we have to far against much. >> i agree. every type someone makes a phone you how manytell types said i'd rather not talk about that on the phone, let's person. are the terrorists that upset that we've spent trillions of programs? service you have to understand that a lot of people do live in paranoia now from its own government, so e have to find that balance and say are we to continue to grow government. the terrorists, they want us to live in fear and paranoia, and a

lot of people in this room live orfear of their government the fear of retribution from their government and there's for that.one reason if you look at the n.s.a. and if to continue to go the way it has, it has created a lot of paranoia amongst people in all communities across america. >> but as a matter of fact, to hear someone say, well, we spent too much money on surveillance and so on. that's the challenge that we understand. we pain with too broad a brush, we run the risk of taking away the principal points we have to focus on, which is the enemy has big advantages. they can get into this country. they can spend a few dollars and all of a sudden all the press is the time about the attack.

that's a big advantage, because taking advantage of a free society. they can hijack an airplane and drive it into the world trade center, costs them very little. but billions upon billions, ofdreds of billionings dollars we've spent since the 9/11 attack, which could have been used for the benefit of cutting taxes or adding to the quality of life of the american people. advantages.s great we have to make sure we use ours too. we have is advantage this point of american conceptualism. i have confidence in the quality and nature of the american character. that's with a we were discussing morning, the american character. thishat's why when conflict is here and it is city prevailwe are going to because of the nature of america. >> many of you are coming up we sit here.s as if you could write the down on a card, and someone will be by to pick that up and bring it

up to the stain momentarily. to ask one more question, and that is, edward patriot? traitor, or neither? first. >> so we actually had this discussion before. personally i think he should be he before a jury of his peers. i wouldn't call him a patriot. openedt he revealed has a lot of people to understand how complex the data overreach ofand government has been, and i think it's indisputable that through howactions, no matter controversial they were, that they really opened a dialogue and discussion about this agency for so long was unknown. and i think that if you want to truly civil disoh bead yent, turned himself in and paid the price for his own not have within --

i don't think that helped his cause. i will say that we should all understand and pay tribute to what he did, in essence by saying we now have a discussion point of evidence about the n.s.a. because if it guarantee him i can thaw this panel today would not be here because american invacy, if you look at national circles and national debate, you know, topics, it's tremendously ever since 2013.tions in may of >> or they can tell it to the jury. this is edward snowden. edward snowden is a traitor to the united states of america. [applause] that edward now show dennis a traitor.

snowden was given the most confidential trust of the people of the united states. he was granted a security so that he could have the availability to get the information. betrayed that security clearance. hadad a job in which he trust from his superiors, he trade that trust. when the time came for him to light and take his information and make available and undermine the he told histhe ud, boss he was going back to california for some kind of medical treatment, got on a went to hong kong, where of course as we know he's under the communist jurisdiction point, and then of course ended up in russia where has received now an extended period of type of good treatment in russia. ladies and gentlemen, i believe that sooner or later, sooner or later, that the russians are

going to come to their senses real nice we're not going to be able to put the soviet union again.gether one condition the united states should place is the return of trial, as aden for traitor to this country. [applause] >> my favorite question is, can the ncht s.a. find lois lerner's e-mails.ms or ( laughter ) this is an interesting question. if iphone someone who calls yemen, am i guilty of association albeit unknowingly. fact that a lot of people are be inly calling countries where there are but you mayctive, just be calling a relative.

separate the we bad actors from the good actors aftert intentionally go people who are seemingly guilty by association. >> i think that's a great question, and it assumes that be targeted as soon as you get a call from overseas and there's no evidence the case.s further more we ought to make it not the case. have to me we ought to protocols at the n.s.a., they ought to be in a position where they're telling people what they're doing. i think the congress has been woefully inadequate in their aresight of what people doing. but if you get a call from there's noyemen, if other evidence that the person to amehow connected conspiracy against the united states, why would the nch s.a. that.t something like but if you do, if you're in

contact with someone, frankly neighbor oror girlfriend may be looked at in order to determine whether or cellhere's some kind of that's being formed that could put the people of the united of danger.ome kind >> i agree with a large part of congress'with inaction, i think it's been intentional because no one ever wanted to undo that house of car and dive deep into this agency that would have made them a lot enemies. no den did something fraying ran guive theow opportunity for people to talk about.

>> it's not fair to quote thomas jefferson against a virginian. that.ust not fair to do ( laughter ) to recognizee need that what snowden has done. and wes a low level guy don't know the whole story of edward snowden. hopefully we'll put him on trial and find some more things out about him. he has fact is that what exposed is the superiority of our knowledge. knows that they're sloppy in their use of cell phones or if they use cell phones a particular way, they'll be tracked. now know that, so they will change their conduct. they know that if they do themin things that give e-mail information, if they do that, that they're capable of being tracked. other countries know that if they operate in a particular ways against the

states, of the united that let we will find out. who areefore the people are -- war now. a if they could get us citizens of the ud to be so suspicious of our own country, of our own dismantle ourt we advantages, then at this point strategic degree for the enemy of this country. and i want to say this again, if don't believe me, turn on your television right now and we are at war. and the worse is coming. we have to be as prepared as we can be, as active as we can be of thisct the people country, because the challenges, believe me, are not behind us, ahead.e still would you kirk, discontinue monitoring of all electronic correspondence? parameters would

you place on monitoring? >> that's a great question. have to find out the extent of what they've been doing. frequency ofo the every single text, call or e-mail you make, that is a clear violation of the fourth amendment. if the police think there's a they can kickg down the door. if there is not reasonable cause, they should not be monitoring the every day united citizens, so there has to be reasonable cause. fisa report have gone unchecked, but -- i've had this discussion with some people and they say you're a terrorist sympathize examiner all this crazy stuff. say no, i'm just interjecting into the discussion that right we life with a government that abuses its power every volunteer the we

be careful how we approach bureaucracy. to en --e says do want >> i agree, there are international threats that are that were not there three or four years ago, and there's many different that.s for but if we do not have a congressional oversight of this eak, we're going to see the quick erosion of our civil liberties. >> i've got a question specifically for you. these are great questions, by the way. gilmore, corrupt politicianings throughout history have justify the removal using fearliberty by tactics. can you provide a moral justification for fourth that doesviolations not rely on fear? no, i believe in the fourth amendment. i've been a prosecutor and a trial lawyer, and i've tried

cases, i've defended them under the fourth amendment, i've the fourthants under peopled, and i've been a potentials prosecutor and attorney general. so i don't believe there's any building up fear in the body politic, to try to undo any part of the bill of right. we agree with that. believe that we pretend that things are worse than they are. i've seen senator paul mol up his cell phone and say the tboch right to know with a you're saying on his cell phone. but he's also his own up for presidential as conspiraciations. we can avoid the false choice. saying,e choice of well, if you have a cell phone, againstiously you're

the n.s.a. having the capacity to do things to protect this say baloney,i nonsense. we can do what is necessary to that we'veantage built up from a free estate to protect a free society. we don't have to throw these away because unscrupulous politicians. ones after 9/11 much this is what worries me, trumpetnd one more call. after 9/11, the congress hand so like apes, nay were scared. they were so afraid that hi had as to allowigent this attack that they raised immediately to do things that have been reckless. i worried. we have nod had a sufficient conversation. this panel is a good panel, and is a great advocate in this area. we need to have more a with the american people, to prepare them for the

challenges of homeland security and for the adversaries that are determined to bring down this nation. we thought to be having that conversation because if we don't againe enemy attacks us the american people have to be mentally prepared for the fact that we're in it for the long the long haul is not just the safety of this country, but as charlie says, it's the liberties of this country as well. >> this question concerns currency and privacy. i see a time in 10 years where 100% currency is gone and of our transactions are tracked i.r.s.n.s.a. or looking in terms of future kind ofgist, what parameters we have to put around security and lendity? a great question. and the premise of the question has come from the rise of bitcoin, it's like an online crypto currency. the reason i love this question next two years we waylt need to overhaul the

that interdepartment collusion n.s.a., because it's going to back easier for to doked bureaucracies what they do. let's say the i.r.s. is deal haven't n.s.a. and we made any reforms, that's a scary federal for a bureaucracy. so this is why this needs to happen today and the action to happen almost immediately. we the american people have to accountable and especially because we can't that's brewer cats, something -- int's why we put peep congress. that's why governor gilmore holds peep in congress that.table to do >> i'm for cash, i just don't

it. enough of ( laughter ) none of us do. think that we need to be thoughtful going forward about paperse of technology, mail is now disappearing, we hear about all these wonderful morning between the founding fathers andler letters that mucht written any for. the capacity we've created through the internet is changing the american society and the world society. making things very different. have to be thoughtful about this going forward and sure that whatever technological changes we make, we never lose sight of that stone that cheney was talking about this morning. >> this question, if we start getting suicide bombers here, i believe people will drastically overreact and make this a police state. how do we prevent that?

can see the foreshadowing of what the police state could do. ferguson, agree or disagree, for a local police to are this force, canhoritative you say hold on a second be that's over bombing. and i agree that we have a tendency like a 9/11 as the happens said something we completely overreact. rice is --inancial crisis, let's spend money we don't have. i will say this harks the have as asset that we americans, and i'll agrees with is not ourr on this, intelligence, but it's the patriotism and loyalty the people. if we lose that because the government creates paranoia and american people, that can never be undone by some computer.per the patriotism that is in every american, that is our greatest

national asset and that what is we must protect. for lack of a better term, what the constitution was meant to do, to prevent us soment to come after that we the people could defend we'll to and we the thrive. so our greatest as says lies within ourselves as the people. [applause] >> i agree with charlie on that, that's why americans are exceptional and that's one of our basic principles going forward of our future for this country and the future of our and our security policy foreign policy, americans are exceptional. touch stones that other people around the world don't have. countries,in foreign i've traveled to dozens of foreign countries and each much countries has their issues as well. i think we need to maintain

those touch stones. see once again though, because i think i want to underscore it, i do worry, i do worry about the rise of lose this and if we confidence in ourselves, in our to govern ourselves, there is danger. enemies of this country would like to do that, they to thatke to drive us point where a tig triggering would causeme keun us to do the wrong thing. have more of a conversation with the american people, more of a sense of how cut into this challenge that we face. those touchck to stones that charlie refers to, the inevitable comes we don't overreact and

call on your government to do improper.t are and remember those touch stones about american exceptionalism. to get to thee entire stock of questions, so s.a.hand this to the np agent outside those doors. i want to give a chance for gentlemen to give two-minute closing remarks. also suggest you visit the freeoint awsm and >> we know that we talked about the n.s.a.'s unconstitutional behavior. if we all e-mail the constitution to each other, they it, file it and maybe understand it. this has been awe great dialogue and i hope everyone here was able to learn something and take something away from this panel.

say this, that right now i do not trust the government, i started my opening remarks with a question. do you trust the government? i want everyone here to really themselves that, and i can venture a guess what your intense is. ask yourself should we have unchecked federal bureaucracy, and what are you going to do to hold people accountable. the constitution was written for a reason and it was a timeless and everyone here i'm just is well versed on why it was written. to limits written government's north against the people, and it was written to prosper.e people to and the thought process behind the constitution, unlike any human history,in unlike the french and unlike the come from our rights god and those rights are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. are also theights ability to live our life without big brother looking over our or the threat of retribution from a rogue i.r.s. or.

in s.a. agent. and i think that this discussion in the future is to understand that if we allow government to go unchecked, then the use of pair will continue. notatter what the issue, it the n.s.a., it's not a seump computer, it lies in you, and only the constitution can al through the american people to continue to be free. thank you. [applause] >> we need to recognize the challenges ahead and understand policy that means that the 21st century will american century. that means we need a president who understands the exceptionalism of this country, the role of the united states in the world, tumultuousy in this

and changing time, with rising to opponents that we have face with the opportunities that we have to provide the stability country, which mean we have to have an act of foreign wreckless one. we don't need to be lured into dissipate our we be but nor should you a -- we need a president that understands the nature of american power, the nature of and the tub wem will to to the right thing. to in the end, we have recognize that it's not a matter just of whether we trust the government. we can exact the government. we can change the gom. toricans are in a position do that. at the end of the day we have to in this longt

conflict that we are in now, belief andd our confidence in ourselves. >> thank you, governor. [applause] can question give a final plus debaters.wo wonderful [applause] >> well done. >> next, former indiana congressman lee hamilton talks u.s. terror threats to the then a conversation with ohio senator rob portman on the mid term elections. that, a forum on u.s.

strategy to combat the isis group. next, more on the president's speech concerning isis and counterterrorism efforts in the u.s., from "washington journal," is just over 40 minutes.

host: served as the vice chair of the 9/11 commission and runs on congress at indiana university. congressman hamilton, when you watched the president on as a former ht, member of congress, did he make your view that we need to take action against isis? guest: i think he began to make the case. a complicated question, of course. out with positions that were quite clear in some areas. military strikes, for example. i still think there are a lot of questions to be asked about the strategy and how it's going to implemented. one component of a strategy that i think was entirely missing. that seems to me to be the ideas.led war on isis is fundamentally an

ideology. it will be hard to destroy. have destroyed ideologies in it'sast, naziism, fascism, taken a lot of effort. it has to be accompanied by an affirmative message that appeals to the good judgment of the vast muslims.of i want to see not just a military component, an ntelligence component, and economic component, but i want to see a strategy that has an appeal toe message to the good instincts of so many people in that part of the world. you've got to fight an ideology with a better ideology. we clearly have that when you about isis. host: it's been 10 years since commission put out their report. and one of the recommendations the u.s. does not act aggressively to find itself

in the islamic world, the u.s. for us. do it have we been successful in identifying ourselves? guest: we've been successful with good people, moderate democratic, small d minded people in that region of the world. voices have not prevailed. they have not been successful in appeal. isis an they've been remarkably successful, really, in their extremists.e and getting their support. they seem to have an unending supply of those people coming to their banner. to dove got a lot of work in this area, i believe, in order to prevail. militaryrly you need a the financial is component is very important isis.g to cut off they've been success informal that area as well. the diplomatic political side of is important. we're trying to put together

this coalition now. and as the papers are reporting morning, we're having some trouble with that. it's an important part of the strategy. don't win a battle or by other steps, you're going have to have a coalition of forces on the ground. it's not clear to me at this who's going to be putting on the ground for combat purposes. we're going to have to do it but nobody seems to be stepping up point in te at this time. host: if you would put on your congressional hat for a minute, a role for congress -- has the president consulted enough with congress? on ld congress take a vote this? or can the president act unilaterally?

guest: my position is extreme here. the thought to go to war should e shared by the president and the congress. of course, in the past, that preference of mine has often violated. today, the congress has been so timid and deferential to the regard to the use of military force, not just today, but going back for a good many years. hat congress has not been playing major role in the the ous decision that president makes, to start fighting. i think you're better off in the acts in a the country united way that the president and congress comes together. you can argue that either way. you can argue it around and you can argue it flat. presidents in the end are going to do what they want to

do, what they think is the best protect the o national interests to the united states. to congress ought to get in the action. when you have a situation like a little time to figure it out. robust ress should ask questions about exit strategy and how to put the it together and all or the rest of it. out of that i think will come a better policy. that's the whole idea of debate and discussion. that's why we ought to proceed the way the 's congress ought to act. and it should act on this decision. my guess is that the president will argue that he has the he ateral authority, which probably has. he'll see a lot of problems in going to the congress.

congress will find reasons not them don't want to cast the vote for a variety of reasons, so we'll go back. recent 've done in the past which really lets the president decide whether or not militarily and how you intervene. i think that's getting away from the constitutional idea of a shared decision by the congress and the president on this -- on this question of intervention. if you're a democrat, 3881 for republicans, 202-585-3882 if you're independent. we try to educate the people on the role of congress and a representative democracy. have a representative democracy unless the congress lives up to the

responsibilitieses so i'm very oncerned about the deferential attitude about congress on the questions of war powers and on things.nd many other so we want to strengthen the congress by, i hope, being a onstructive critic of the congress and letting people know how important this institution f the congress is under our constitutional system. virginia, y, mclean, on with lee hamilton. mr. r: first of all, hamilton, i admired how clearly discussed ately you issues. i love maybe an academic like the ideaat i of a war of ideas. isis e given that the people are enraged and all. would wonder what placate this. in that i believe it's true that

the borders of syria and iraq artificially created after i mean, it just -- father used to say was being ever mindful of needs of others. the sunnis and the shiahs have hating each and other for thousands of years. be possible for them to just let -- let the sunnis have their areas, the shiahs their areas. lucy, thank ght, you. lee hamilton? guest: well, i think the she ioner is correct -- points out that the conflicts in are deep seeded. they go back not years, centuries. shiahs, the sunnis, the the kurds, and so forth. but it's a multiple sectarian

divide in the middle east that makes things very, ery complicate in that region of the world. me this argues for some restraint in what we try to do. i don't want to pull back and go isolationist mode here. on the other hand, we have to act with great, great caution. much, no ly do so matter how strong, no matter how good we are.er how in correcting the problems of the middle east. and as she suggests in the call, fundamentally take responsibility for resolve their own problems. we want to help to the extent that we can. but we can't solve these problems for them. deep seeded with deep animosities in the region.