Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>[Robert Hazell] Good evening and welcome everyone. I'm Robert Hazell and I'm a professor
in the School of Public Policy and Director of the Constitution Unit here at UCL. Over
the years, we've done a lot of work on Scottish devolution and Scottish independence, so it
gives me great pleasure to welcome Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister in Scotland,
to give tonight's lecture. Her timing is impeccable. [Audience laughter] As you will all know,
today was the day the gloves finally came off in the independence debate. We had George
Osborne's speech this morning rejecting the possibility of an independent Scotland joining
a currency union with the UK. So this evening is Nicola's chance to respond on that and
many other issues. By outlining her vision for an independent Scotland, which was set
out in detail in the Scottish government's very impressive white paper published last
November. And the form of tonight is that Nicola will speak for about 30--30 minutes,
thus allowing plenty of time for questions. But we must finish five or ten minutes before
6:30 to allow her to catch a plane. But I hope everyone else here will be able to join
us for a drink afterwards in the Cloisters. Nicola, thank you very much for coming tonight.
The floor is yours. [Applause] >>[Nicola Sturgeon] Thank you very much indeed
Robert for that very kind invitation. If I'd know there was a drink on offer I'd have booked
a later plane. [Laughter.] Obviously I have to let you in to a secret that the 'impeccable
timing' that Robert referred to today was all the result of very careful planning. George
and I had a conversation last week and said, "How are we going to make this UCL lecture
as topical as possible?" And I said, "Well, George, if you just come to Edinburgh and
do a speech, and I go down to London..." So it was all carefully planned as I'm sure you
realised this morning. It is a real pleasure to be here in London and to be here at UCL
to set out the case for Scotland becoming an independent member of the family of nations
that make up the British Isles. The decision that Scotland will take on the 18th of September
is one that rightly and practically can only be taken by people living in Scotland. That
said, those of us who argue for a "yes" vote are acutely aware, and I personally am very
acutely aware, that the decision we take will impact on our friends and neighbours across
the whole United Kingdom. And as I've set out later, I believe that impact will be a
positive one. But in the interconnected world that we live in, it is, I think, very important,
very, very important for all of us who want Scotland to become independent to set out
the basis of our case not just within Scotland, but also to the rest of the UK and indeed
to the wider world. Above all, it's important for us to be crystal clear to the people of
England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that our case is not -- emphatically not -- separatist
or insular. Nor is it in any way, shape or form driven by antipathy towards or resentment
of our neighbours in the rest of the UK. Instead, the case that we make is based on a desire
to be responsible, to stand on our two feet, to make and be accountable for our own decisions,
but also to be a good neighbour making a positive contribution to the world that we live in.
Last week, the Prime Minister made a speech about the bonds that exist between Scotland
and the rest of the UK. Much of the commentary around that speech certainly in Scotland centred
on the fact that he chose to make his case in the Olympic Stadium in London rather than
head to head in debate with Alex Salmond, but I'll leave that to one side for now. The
fact is that I, the grand-daughter of an English woman, absolutely agree with the Prime Minister
that the bonds of history, family, trade and culture that exists between Scotland and the
rest of the UK are strong, and they are precious. This university is a living example of a shared
heritage. Two of UCLs what you would call founding fathers, the poet Thomas Campbell
and the lawyer and MP Henry Broom were Scots. I'm sure nobody here will mind me pointing
out that when UCL was founded back in 1826, it became only the third university in England,
whereas by then Scotland already had five, including my own university, Glasgow. I also
have to say, I suspect that his association with this university would be a much prouder
claim to fame for Henry Broom than the fact that he to this day I understand holds the
record for the longest ever speech in the House of Commons. On the 7th of February,
1828, he spoke for six hours on the scintillating subject of law reform. I'm a lawyer as well
by background but I'll only do about four or five tonight if that's okay. But the point
I'm making, and it's a point that will run through everything I say to you this evening,
is that the social union that exists between Scotland and the other nations of the UK is
strong and it will endure. Scots have and will no doubt continue to seek out fame and
fortune in this thriving cosmopolitan city, just as people born in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland will continue to make their homes in Scotland, and in doing so, will enrich
our country and our culture. We'll continue to trade with each other, we'll share the
ups and downs of our common history, we'll enjoy the intricacies of family connection,
we'll cheer on Andy Murray and Mo Farah -- who knows, we might even back each other at football,
or maybe I'm taking this a bit too far at this point. But the fact is these bonds were
forged not by governments or constitutions, but over generations by my ancestors and yours,
by people who inhabited the same islands. And the strength and depth of these bonds
means that they don't depend on Scotland continuing to be governed by Westminster. On the contrary,
I believe, and I believe it very strongly, that the relationship between the countries
and the peoples of these islands will be strengthened with Scotland as an equal partner. An independent
nation taking responsibility for our own decisions and not having anybody else to blame when
things go wrong. The case for independence that I'll set out for you this evening rests
on three key arguments. Firstly, that Scotland can be a successful independent country. Our
economy and our public finances are strong. We are well prepared for taking on the responsibilities
of independence, and our proposals on issues such as currency and continuing membership
of the European Union make sense. They make sense for us and they make sense for our neighbours.
They are well thought through, rational and reasonable. They represent what will be the
common sense outcome of the negotiations that will follow a "Yes" vote in September. Secondly,
I will contend that Scotland should and I would say must become an independent country.
It is to me a statement of the obvious that our interests will be better served by decisions
taken in our own parliament rather than at Westminster by governments that are all too
often at odds with the political instincts of the majority of people living in Scotland.
Moreover, I believe that independence will better equip us to face up to and address
the challenges that we undoubtedly face as a country. And thirdly, I'll argue that independence
for Scotland will be good for our relationship with the other nations of the UK. In fact,
I'll go further and venture to argue that an independent Scotland would be good for
and should be embraced by all those across the UK who want to see progressive change.
But first, let me start with a point of agreement in the debate. Scotland can be a successful
independent country. Last week, the Financial Times said this, "Among the blizzard of contention
and spin that surrounds the independence debate, some points of broad consensus are clear.
The leading players on both sides accept that Scotland has all the ingredients to be a viable
nation-state. It went on to note that with a geographic shade of North Sea oil and gas,
an independent Scotland's GDP per head would be higher than that of France, we'd be in
the top 20 countries in the world in terms of GDP per head, and the top 50 in terms of
GDP overall. Quite something, for a country of just five million people. We'd also be
one of the world's top 35 exporters. And as the FT also pointed out, while spending per
head is higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, so too is revenue. The gap between
spending and revenue, in other words, our deficit, is actually smaller than in the UK
as a whole. Indeed, we've generated more revenue than the UK average in each and every single
one of the past 32 years. So our public finances are relatively strong, or to put it again
in the words of the Financial Times, an independent Scotland could expect to start with healthier
state finances than the rest of the UK. We've also got a resilient and diverse economy with
key strengths in areas like food and drink, tourism, creative industries, life sciences,
financial services and manufacturing. We've got more universities per head of population
in the Times top 200 than any other nation in the world. So, there's broad agreement,
consensus even, that's something that's rare in the independence debate, on Scotland's
fundamental economic and financial viability as an independent state. But the case that
Scotland can be independent is not just based on economics and finances. The experience
of devolution has shown us that making decisions in Scotland rather than at Westminster on
health, on education, on justice, works. It's brought real benefits for people living in
Scotland. Devolution has also demonstrated that we can run our own affairs competently.
Success of Scottish governments have shown the resources to deliver our policy priorities
from within a balanced budget. Some would say we have legally no choice, and that is
true, but nevertheless we've exerted the discipline to do so. We've reformed our national health
service in a way that is consistent with our political views and traditions, opting not
to follow the privatisation that has taken place elsewhere in these islands. The Scottish
parliament itself has proved itself to be an open and accessible legislature, widely
admired for its modern, inclusive approach. And we've developed an international presence
and reputation on certain key issues. Our climate change legislation, for example, led
the world. So that experience of devolution is important, and it's now being brought to
bear in our planning for independence. The white paper that Robert referred to is the
most detailed blueprint ever produced for any country moving towards independence. And
it is one of many documents published by the Scottish government to inform the debate.
The Independent Fiscal Commission Working Group, which includes two Nobel Laureates
in Economics, has produced detailed proposals for the macroeconomic framework of an independent
Scotland, including a currency union. Its considered in detail the fiscal rules it would
be required to make such a monetary union work, preempting the points, I thought, very
sensibly made by the governor of the Bank of England in Edinburgh, a couple of weeks
ago. Its also published detailed proposals for a modern and efficient tax system and
for an oil fund, to ensure that we are responsible in our stewardship of the remaining oil and
gas reserves that remain in the North Sea. The Scottish government has also produced
detailed papers on the membership of the European Union, we've appointed expert commissions
on welfare and on energy markets, these commissions have and will continue to inform the development
of our proposals, so we are prepared. We've done and are doing the work. We know how to
make the transition from where we are now to Scotland as an independent nation. Now,
of course if Scotland votes yes in September, as I hope it will, some big matters will require
negotiation. Of course, because something lies in the future and requires agreement
doesn't mean that we can't make reasonable and confident judgements about the outcome.
For example, I think everyone accepts that Scotland will be in the European Union, and
that it will be in everyone interests to make sure that our transition to independent membership
happens seamlessly. Indeed, there's a growing sense in Scotland that the only real threat
to our membership in the European Union would be in the event of a "no" vote and the in-out
referendum planned by David Cameron in 2017. That threat aside, it's inconceivable that
the European Union, an institution that exists to bring down barriers between countries,
would want to exclude Scotland. ør the rest of the UK, which coexists quite happily with
the Republic of Ireland in a borderless common travel area would insist on anything different
in its relationship with Scotland. We're also confident, despite the renewed sabre rattling
of the "no" campaign that's been hitting the headlines today, that a currency union can
be agreed, not just because the pound belongs to Scotland as much as it does to the rest
of the UK, and the Bank of England is a shared asset, that more importantly, because the
Sterling zone is underpinned by the appropriate institutional arrangements to make it work,
will serve the economic, financial and trading interests of the rest of the UK as much as
the interests of Scotland. Politicians on the "no" side of this debate will of course
tell you something different. That is their right to do so. They will argue that after
300 years, Scotland is entitled to nothing from the UK except a share of the debt, begging
the question of why we would want to stay in a union that treated it with such contempt.
They want people to believe that there will be border posts between Scotland and England
even though there are none between the UK and Ireland. They suggest that Scotland would
have to leave the European Union only to rejoin later as some kind of super national hokey
pokey. They say all of these things because it is in their vested interests to create
a climate of fear and uncertainty. They know, I think, that their positions lack credibility
but they repeat them anyway and then wonder why their campaign is losing ground. And I
think nothing demonstrates this more starkly than the position on currency outlined this
morning by George Osborne, a position that I predict will backfire on the "no" campaign.
I think it's a panicked reaction to shifting polls, to a narrowing of the position in Scotland.
Smacks a little bit of bullying and intimidation and believe me, people in Scotland will not
take kindly to being bullied by George Osborne. But worst of all, I think it's a bluff, and
I think people know it. Because whatever George Osborne might like to think, we're not actually
daft. Now, the fact is that Westminster can't stop Scotland from using the pound. it is,
after all, a fully tradable currency, but more to the point, a UK government that decided
against a currency union would put itself at odds with majority public opinion in Scotland,
and according to a recent poll, in England as well. It would cost English business hundreds
of millions of pounds in transaction costs, it would blow a hole worth of tens of billions
of pounds in the UK balance of payments, and since the sharing of assets and liabilities
do go in hand in hand, it would potentially leave Westminster shouldering the entirety
of UK debt, which is not incidentally a position that is advocated by the "yes" side. But all
of these consequences would flow from any absurd decision on the part of Westminster
to defuse a currency union. That's the reality. It's no doubt why Alistair Darling, not a
"yes" supporter in case you haven't noticed, said himself, that if Scotland was to become
independent, a currency union would be, and a I quote, "logical and desirable." And it's
why, regardless of what is said now in the heat of a campaign, the treasury position
will be very different after the reality of a "yes" vote. The fact is that people know
that if Scotland votes yes, we will have done so peacefully, democratically and constitutionally.
And while there will be big issues to negotiate and to resolve, it will at that point be in
the overwhelming interests of all concerned for sensible agreement to be reached. The
heat of the campaign will give way to mutual self interest and to hard common sense. So
my first proposition this evening is that Scotland can both become and be a successful
independent country -- we know how to do it and we have common sense solutions to the
practical issues we face. The real question we face in Scotland is not whether we can,
but whether we should become an independent country. I argue that we should because I
firmly believe that those of us who live and work in Scotland are the best people to make
decisions about our future. We are the best qualified to know what we need and want and
because we will have to live with the outcomes, we have the greatest incentive to make the
right decisions. In short, independence means that we will stand on our own two feet, take
responsibility for ourselves and have no one else to blame if things go wrong. Independence,
in my view, will better equip us to face up to the challenges of the future. I said earlier
on that we would have the strongest possible starting point as an independent country,
and that is true, but the choice we face in the referendum is about the future. Like other
countries, we face some big challenges. Constrained public finances, a legacy of debt, we face
a need to boost our working population. But these are not arguments against independence.
These are products of the status quo, they're reasons not to keep things as they are but
to do things differently. We need to grow our economy faster in Scotland. We need to
be more competitive. We need to expand our working age population, and in doing so raise
the revenue that will support the public services that we value. As part of the current system
we have going for us, we haven't performed as well as many of our similar-sized independent
competitors, our independent neighbours have grown their economies, they've grown their
populations more quickly than we have. The benefit of independence is that we get our
hands on the tools we need to improve our performance in these crucial areas. We could,
for example, choose to transform childcare, building on the improvements we've been able
to deliver with the limited powers of devolution. In the independence white paper, we set out
our long term plan for the provision of free universal child care for all children from
the age of one to school age at five. Our present child care costs in Scotland are among
the highest in Europe. They present a real barrier to parents, women in particular, pursuing
fulfilling careers, getting back into the workplace, and yet we know that if we can
raise female participation in the labour market to levels achieved in Sweden, for example,
then as well as the boost to general economic performance, we would also generate something
like an additional seven hundred millions pounds per year in tax revenue. Money that,
in an independent Scotland, could stay in Scotland to help fund the policy for the long
term. When you operate within a fixed block grant as we do now, you don't benefit from
the increased tax revenues that are generated by sensible economic policies that you implement.
That money goes to the pocket of George Osborne. So right now no devolved Scottish government
could make a big commitment like that without making big cuts elsewhere. It is a social
and economic transformation that is only possible when we control both tax and spending. We
could also ensure with independence that we have an approach to immigration that meets
our needs, not one that panders to UKIP. Our demographics mean that for Scotland, sensible
migration is an opportunity not a threat. It's vital that we grow our population, if
we're to grow our economy, if we're to protect our welfare state. Sensible migration along
with more women in the workforce, more of our own young people available to stay and
access good jobs in Scotland is important for our future. The economic powers of independence
would also equip us to compete more effectively with the centre of economic gravity that is
this city. London is a wonderful city, one of the great global centres of human culture,
industry, achievement. The energy of London, it's multiculturalism, the intensity of life
here, all of that is what I and so many other people love about this city. But the reality
is from the Prime Minister down, there's a recognition that too much economic activity
is concentrated in London and the southeast. David Cameron said that such a narrow foundation
for growth was unstable. But this is a trend that has continued and is continuing under
successive Westminster administration, it's accelerating. The gap in economic performance
between regions in the UK is larger than in any other European country. In practical terms,
that means jobs and opportunities are increasingly concentrated here. Indeed, just before Christmas
Vince Cable said, rather unkindly I thought, that London was like a suction machine draining
the life out of the rest of the country. So where does Scotland fit into that picture
of unequal economic growth and job opportunities? Well I know exactly where I don't want us
to be. I don't want us to be sitting on the periphery groaning about it, blaming London
for having the temerity to be successful. I want us to be competitive. I want Scotland
to have the ability to seek to emulate and not resent the best that you have to offer.
And because of the economic strengths that we have and because of the action that the
Scottish parliament has taken over many years, we perform better than any other part of the
UK outside of London and the southeast. But we can do better if we become a national economy
with the full range of economic powers to take advantage of the inherent strengths we
have. Another key argument for independence is that we'll address the democratic deficit
at the heart of how we're currently governed. The current Westminster government consists
of parties that came third and fourth in the general election in Scotland. The coalition
is currently led by the Tories who in the last four UK general elections have won in
order, zero, one, one and one Westminster seats in Scotland. Now it was the impact of
the democratic deficit throughout the 1980s and 1990s that led in no small way to the
establishment of our own parliament. But today Westminster still makes the big decisions
on our economy, the shape of our welfare state, on whether nuclear weapons should continue
to be based in close proximity to our largest city. And today we have a Westminster government
led by a party with one MP in Scotland that is yet again imposing policies like the bedroom
tax that have little support in Scotland, a government that is embracing austerity not
through necessity but by ideological choice. A government intent on dismantling the very
foundations of the post-war welfare state. All of that puts the democratic deficit centre
stage again, with opinion growing that the only way to address it once and for all is
to complete the powers of our parliament through independence. And while I'm on the subject
of democracy, let me just address one particular myth about Scottish independence, and that
is that if Scotland were to become independent, we are somehow condemning the rest of the
UK to one party rule. In fact, in only two of the 18 general elections that have taken
place since 1945, October 1964 and February 1974 would the largest party in Westminster
have been different if Scotland had been independent and not returned any MPs to Westminster. And
the governments that were elected on these occasions lasted for less than 26 months in
total. So votes in Scotland rarely affect the outcome of UK general elections. Scotland
as part of the UK has virtually no influence on the make up or the direction of Westminster
governments. We do have to live with the policies they implement, though. But it is possible
that an independent Scotland could be a progressive beacon for those in the rest of the UK who,
like us, crave a different direction to the one set by the Westminster establishment.
And that brings me to the third and last of the arguments I want to put forward to you
this evening. And that is that the rest of the UK has nothing to fear, and I would argue,
much to gain from Scotland becoming independent. Those who've followed the referendum debate,
those who are following the referendum debate, will have noticed that one of the claims that
the "no" campaign makes is that Westminster decision making means a pooling of resources
and a sharing of risk across the UK and they often hold up the welfare state and the NHS
as examples of the pooling of resources. I think it's their attempt at positive campaigning.
But it is, I think, an argument built on sand because people can see with their own eyes
that Westminster isn't sharing resources and pooling risk. Instead, the resources are being
taken away and the risk is being borne by the poor and the vulnerable. And the very
institutions that they seek to use to build support for continued Westminster government,
the NHS and the welfare state, are being undermined by Westminster. We've already seen the return
of the means test for child benefits, the iniquitous bedroom tax, changes to the income
of the working poor. And it's not just the cuts themselves that are destroying the safety
net on which I believe we should all be able to depend in times of need, it's also the
rhetoric of "scrounger" and "striver", the abandonment of the universal principle, it's
the politics of division from those who claim that they're trying to bring people together.
And we see that division in the fragmentation of the health service in England. We hear
warnings that the tories are intent on wholesale privatisation of the NHS, the English hospitals
are asking for credit cards before they give care. If the health service in England is
indeed on the way to becoming a US healthcare system, that would have damaging consequences
for Scotland. Private money replaces public funding of the NHS in England, that will trigger
cuts to public service's funding in Scotland. So budget pressures and cuts in England from
privatisation will lead to financial pressures in Scotland. So far from a "no" vote protecting
the institutions that we value, a "no" vote actually, by keeping them at the mercy of
Westminster decisions, places them under more threat. And it's not just the case, as Labour
would have us believe, of crossing our fingers and hoping for a different Westminster government.
In truth, there is very little to choose between the different Westminster parties on these
issues. It was Labour that enthusiastically embraced the market and healthcare, the private
finance initiative. And it's Labour today that says it will be just as tough if not
tougher than the Tories on welfare. So we look at Westminster and we see it offering
no real alternative for those in Scotland or indeed elsewhere in the UK who want a different
approach. And the Westminster way might work for some, it does work for some. But it isn't
working for the majority of people in Scotland. And it is for that majority that the "yes"
campaign seeks to speak up for, for the tens of thousands of children who are facing a
childhood of poverty because of attacks on social security. For the pensioners who struggle
to heat their homes in winter in our energy rich country. For the working families whose
already low incomes have been hit hard, for the mothers who can't get back to work because
they're paying somebody the highest childcare costs in Europe, for the small businesses
who need a competitive edge to get ahead and create jobs and grow their business. These
are the people for whom a yes vote offers an alternative to the Westminster way. Now,
an independent Scotland clearly won't get everything right. We will face challenges,
we'll make our fair share of mistakes, but the fact is independence offers us the best,
indeed I would say, the only way of doing things differently. I don't hold to the notion
that we in Scotland have got a higher set of values than people elsewhere. I think that's
nonsense. We do have values. A strong sense of community and social justice. That doesn't
make us unique. What does make us unique this year is that we've got a chance to stand up
for those principles of community and social justice to equip ourselves with the powers
to protect them and promote them, to choose our own path. An opportunity to steer a different
course. We've got a chance in the years that follow a yes vote to prove that the post-war
settlement doesn't need to be a thing of the past. That social justice and enterprise are
two sides of the same coin, that more equal societies really do result in more prosperous
economies. And by showing that things can be done differently, by demonstrating that
the Westminster way is not the only way, just as we've done with the limited powers that
the Scottish parliament has already, I believe that an independent Scotland can offer a positive
example to those elsewhere in the UK who have also been let down by the status quo. Indeed,
to all those who yearn for progressive change as much as we do. I said at the outset of
my remarks that the decision we take in September will affect our friends, our relatives, our
neighbours who live in other parts of the United Kingdom, and it will. But I do believe
that effect will be positive, and not just in the way I've already described, I also
believe passionately that independence will create a healthier relationship between Scotland
and the other nations of our islands. With independence, Scotland will no longer be able
to do what we do all too often: blame London for things that go wrong. Responsibility for
our successes as well as our mistakes will rest with us, and the rest of the UK will
no longer be able to express concern, albeit unfounded, that Scotland is in some way being
subsidised. Scotland and the rest of the UK will both stand on our own two feet, we will
take our own decisions and work together on issues of common interest, our relationship
will be what it always should have been. A partnership of equals. Full powers in Scotland
and an equal relationship with our friends and neighbours, I think that is the best of
both worlds. And we don't have to look too far away to see examples of successful cooperation
between neighbours. The Nordic Council has representatives from Finland, Sweden, Denmark,
Iceland, Norway as well as from Greenland. In 2012, it celebrated its 60th anniversary.
They commissioned a report to mark that anniversary and it noted that one reason the council works
is that people of the five Nordic nations share culture, values and a sense of affinity.
For these islands, even under devolution, we can already see the outlines of how a renewed
partnership of the Isles would work. The British-Irish Council set up in 1998, its secretariat is
based in Edinburgh, it's got representatives from two independent states, three devolved
administrations and three crown dependencies. It's not too difficult to see how it could
be adapted to include three independent nations rather than two. And of course, in addition
to formal mechanisms for cooperation, we would work together on a day to day basis just as
we already do in areas where we already have independent powers in Scotland. I remember
well when I was Scottish Health Secretary during the swine flu crisis I worked closely
and constructively on a day to day, sometimes hour to hour basis with colleagues in our
UK administrations to ensure a coordinated response. That's what good neighbours do.
And Scotland and the rest of the UK will always be more than just good neighbours -- we're
allies, we're friends, we're family. When David Cameron visited Ireland back in early
2012, he and the taoiseach signed a joint declaration, and it said this: "The relationship
between our two countries has never been stronger or more settled, as complex as it is today.
Our citizens uniquely linked by geography and history, are connected today as never
before through business, industry, politics, culture, sport, travel and technology, and
of course, family ties. Our two economies benefit from a flow of people goods, investment,
capital and ideas on a scale that is rare, even in this era of global economic integration."
That statement could easily apply to an independent Scotland and its relationship with the other
nations of these islands. You will be our closest friends as well as our closest neighbours.
And my last point really is just to stress this -- independence is not and never has
been about walking away from anyone. Independence is about taking responsibility, it's about
making our own decisions, it's about working together. Working together with other nations
in the United Nations, in NATO, in the European Union and the British Irish Council, in the
Commonwealth and in many other organisations. But crucially, it's about working together
as an equal partner. In September, we in Scotland face a choice of two futures. We can opt to
continue to make up less than a tenth of the MPs in a parliament whose decisions on welfare,
defence and the economy often disregard our wishes and yet affect key aspects of our lives.
We can continue to go without the full range of fiscal powers we need to shape our own
future. Or, we can choose to become a truly equal partner through independence, reclaiming
the powers we need to meet our aspirations, but also play our full part together with
our closest allies, neighbours and friends in a renewed, stronger, positive partnership
of these isles. The latter is what independence in an inter-dependent world is all about.
Thank you very much indeed. [Applause.] >>[Robert Hazell] Nicola has very generously
allowed about 30--40 minutes for questions. I'm going to take questions in groups and
I'm going to start over on this side of the room, but before that, can I just invite the
people who are standing at the back, who don't have a seat -- there are lots of seats down
the front, so if you want to sit down, do come down and come in to one of these empty
seats down at the front. And let's start the questioning yes with you in the second front
row, microphone coming, can I see hands here. Can we get a microphone to the gentleman holding
his arm there and could you tell us who you are and where you are from. >>[Audience member]
John Young, I'm a teacher of politics and in this context, perhaps, a slightly confused
[unintelligible]. My question is should not an independent Scotland aspire to have its
own currency? Call George Osborne's bluff! >>[Hazell] Hold that one if you would, take
the microphone back six rows, gentleman there. And now you sir, yes. >>[Audience member]
David Maddox from The Scotsman. On the same issue, I hate to say, can you say whether
you are completely ruling out coming up with an alternative to a Sterling zone given that
the three major parties from the UK have now ruled one out? >>[Hazel] And a third question,
you sir. >>[Audience member] Thank you chair. >>[Hazell] Tell us who you are. >>[Audience
member] Oh, I beg your pardon, my name is Frank D'Souza and I live in Kingston Upon
Thames which is some distance away from Hadrian's Wall. I was interested in your mercifully
brief reference to UKIP because some in this audience may well think that what UKIP is
to Europe, the SMP are to the United Kingdom. Now, in all the talk by [unintelligible] and
I say that only to prove that the Sunday Herald is my favourite newspaper-- >>[Hazell] Could
you come to a quick question? >>[Audience member] Yes indeed, here it comes, four lines.
In all of the talk by Mr Salmond and other SMP leaders about Scotland's destiny, an exciting
word for some but a dangerous word for others, I've never heard from any Nat Spokesman until
this afternoon and then only tendentially, about whether they care at all of the fate
of the remnants of the United Kingdom following its dismemberment of the resident Scottish
population because they're the only ones who have a vote, vote yes. Thank you. >>[Sturgeon]
Okay, let me, the first two questions about currency I'll take together. We've looked
and particularly you David I know you're very familiar with the work of the fiscal commission,
we've looked at all the currency options that we'd be open to in an independent Scotland
and based on the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission, we've concluded that a currency
union would be the best option for Scotland and for the rest of the UK. And that's the
position we're going to continue to argue because we think it's the right one. Now ultimately
people will decide when they make their judgement and vote in September, but we think it's right
for Scotland, obviously, that's why we're advocating it, but we believe it's right for
the rest of the UK. I also strongly believe that what's said in the heat of a campaign
changes and common sense prevails after that campaign is over. I think it would be an odd
chancellor of the exchequer, whether George Osborne or Ed Balser, whoever, who'd seek
to go down a path that would incur hundreds of million of pounds of costs for businesses
in England, that would seriously dent the balance of payments and increase the trade
deficit and have implications for the value of Sterling, and I also believe that once
the vote is taken then that mutual self interest becomes much more prominent than the campaign
rhetoric we hear just now. So we'll continue to argue the case that we have set out because
we think it's the right one. And in answer to the first question, a separate currency
was one of the options that was analysed by the fiscal commission -- the fiscal commission,
for those who are not as familiar with its work as I, it's a subcommittee of the council
of economic advisers that was established to advise the Scottish government. The fiscal
commission has amongst its membership Joseph Stieglitz, Professor Jim Mirrlees, and other
nobel laureate in economics, who have looked at options and given advice to the Scottish
government and what the best one is. In terms of the question from the back, I care deeply
about to use your expression, the 'fate of the rest of the UK', it would be the easiest
thing in the world to be a politician, or a Scottish politician right now, to say that
you know, the votes are happening in Scotland so we'll just stay in Scotland. I think it's
important, I think it's incumbent on people like me to come to other parts of the UK and
to effectively explain ourselves, to say this is what drives our support for Scotland being
independent and this is what doesn't drive it, so that there is a proper understanding
of why we advocate this position, and above all else, there is a proper understanding
that it's not driven by resentment or antipathy or anti-Englishness -- it's driven by a desire
to be responsible and accountable and to have a good, constructive, close, friendly relationship
with other parts of the UK and I hope that in coming to do events like this we go some
small way to trying to develop that understanding of why we believe that independence is important,
but also the context in which we see it as important. >>[Hazell] We'll take a question
here and then I'll come over to this side. So this side, yes, starting with you, in the
second row and then can we have mics going back. Could you come round and take a microphone
back up to there. Yes? >>[Audience member] Hi, hello. I'm Heather, and as you can tell
I'm also from the west of Scotland but I now work for the diplomatic service here in London.
So I have a question regarding your views on Europe. So you praise Europe for breaking
down barriers and creating a borderless and yet you want to arguably put up barriers in
a state like UK, and then you criticise the UK for its democratic deficit or Scotland's
democratic deficit in London, and yet you revert to the EU which suffers from a democratic
deficit -- I just wonder why you want to leave a state that's got devolved government and
remain in a supranational organisations that's got power creep? [Applause and laughter.]
>>[Hazell] Take the mic back up to the top and yes, you madame. >>[Audience member] Hi,
hello, I am Laura from the Catalan news agency -- the Catalan government is planning a referendum
on independence in November, somewhat after yours, but Spain says they do not have the
same right as you do to vote in that matter. How do you think the situation in Catalonia
and Spain could affect your referendum, could affect your negotiations in the EU and would
you challenge this argument that Catalonia is not allowed to vote while Scotland it is
allowed to do so in that context of the EU and democracy? Thanks. [Hazell] Thank you,
and one more, right at the top. >>[Audience member] Yep, thank you. Christine McVicker
here in personal capacity, you talk quite confidently about Scotland becoming a member
of the EU, but what guarantees and reassurances have you had from President Barroso and also
linked to that, how confident are you that you will get the support from other EU member
states when we've just heard from there, for example, that Spain might be one of the countries
that are perhaps less likely to support that? >>[Sturgeon] Okay, Heather, I think you've
just proved the point that folk from the west of Scotland don't pull their punches and as
you see, the European Union is made up of independent nations. As it happens, I think
there is a very strong case for reform of how Europe operates, I think the democratic
deficit within Europe is not acceptable, I think there's lots of ways in which Europe
as a union should develop and reform, and I think Scotland would be better able to argue
for and build alliances for those reforms if we're in there with our own voice, seated
at the talk table, able to make our case for that. So I think it suits Scotland and our
interests to be in Europe. I don't think Europe is perfect, far from it. I think it needs
change, not least as a result of the financial crisis, but the democratic deficit is one
of that. I don't advocate putting barriers up, and I will challenge to the last breath
in my body this notion that independence is about putting up barriers. It is about taking
responsibility and working constructively with your neighbours, whether that's in the
UK, Europe or further afield. There's no barriers going to be put up between Scotland and England.
Instead, Scotland will become responsible for its own finances and its own decisions,
and I think that's a very different characterisation to talking about erecting barriers, so that's
the position I would take there. On the friend from Catalonia, I am going to resist the temptation
to comment on the situation in Catalonia, you'll be disappointed to hear, but for the
reason that the decision about whether or not Catalonia should become independent is
for people in Catalonia to take, it's not for me to take. The one thing I would say
is that, and I'm going to praise the UK government here, which you don't hear me do very often,
the Edinburgh Agreement, which is the agreement that was signed by Alex Salmond and David
Cameron setting out the arrangements for the referendum is a model of constitutional democracy.
Two governments with diametrically opposed views on what the outcome of the referendum
should be, coming together to say it's for the people of Scotland to decide and here
is the process by which that will happen and when it does happen, we'll both agree to respect
the outcome and work in the best interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK. And all
I would say is that I think that's a model of how these kind of decisions could be taken
in other countries as well. Every country has the right to exercise its right to self
determination, and I think the Edinburgh Agreement is something that both sides of the Scottish
independence debate should be very proud of indeed. Christine, your question about, I
suppose the first point I would make about President Barroso is that he's not the decision-maker
on all of this. Which is not to disrespect him or be pejorative at all about him, but
we've set out a path that we suggest Scotland can follow to move from where we are just
now as a member of the European Union as part of the UK to being an independent member state.
Scotland votes yes on the 18th of September, we don't become independent on the 19th, we
have a period of -- Robert and I were talking about the timescale earlier on -- we set out
an 18 month period where the independence negotiation would take place, where at that
point, still in the UK and still in the European Union by dent of that, and we see that the
negotiation to make that transition can happen within that timescale. It's in nobody's interests
anywhere in Europe, a country that's been in Europe for forty years, that already complies
with all of the European rules and regulations, to have Scotland cast outside for a period
of time just to come back in. I represent the south side of Glasgow in the Scottish
parliament. I got thousands, and that's not an exaggeration, thousands of constituents.
If that was to happen we'd overnight lose the right to be in Scotland. That's in nobodies
interests to happen. To go back to Spain, Spain has not said and has been very careful
not to say, they would veto Scotland's membership. And sometimes it's what people don't say that's
as interesting as what they do say. In fact, the Spanish foreign minister repeated not
too long ago that if the process of independence in Scotland is democratic and is constitutional,
as it is by virtue of the Edinburgh Agreement, then Spain would have nothing to say about
it. So again, people are going to have to make their judgements about these things,
and you'll listen to the arguments that I put forward and you'll listen to the arguments
that people on the other side put forward and then people have to make their judgement
of what they think is the most reasonable and likely outcome, and on Europe, an organisation
that has spent its entire existence expanding, I don't think it is credible to say its going
to put part of its territory outside of itself. >>[Hazell] Now let's hear some questions from
this side. Starting at the front and can we have a mic on the lady three rows back. >>[Audience
member] Keith Raffan, grandson of an Englishman, so I'm another mongrel. Taking up your point
about the concentration of economic activity in the south-east of England, aren't you concerned
that an independent Scotland, whether in the currency union or in a Sterling area, will
have its interest rates set by a monetary policy committee based in the southeast of
England and acting primarily for the south-east of England? Second, brief point, do you see
the issue of Europe coming to the forefront of the independence campaign after the European
Parliament elections at the end of May? If, as widely predicted, UKIP does extremely well
in England, will the "yes" campaign be arguing strongly and emphatically that the only way
to ensure Scotland remains within Europe is for Scotland to be independent? >>[Hazell]
Over there if you would and take the mic up to the top. So you then next madame, and then
the gentleman next behind. >>[Audience member] Maria Serrano, I'm a scientist here. This
is a genuine question. It's what will happen to institutions such as the health service,
the monarchy, whatever you think of that currently have a common port, so to speak, will it be
a huge economic cost for Scotland or not? >>[Hazell] Thank you, and then you sir. >>[Audience
member] Jonathan Williams from the Investment of Pensions Europe. Now you've said there
will be some kind of idea for a Scottish sovereign wealth fund and that's fantastic. The Norwegian
wealth fund and other sovereign wealth funds have strict rules about draw downs, when the
money can be accessed, given that you have constrained finances, a legacy of debt, and
you want a welfare state that continues and prospers, how certain are you that it won't
just become a cabinet that will be raided before each election for the convenience of
whichever government wins. >>[Sturgeon] Ok, Keith, former colleague of mine in the Scottish
parliament, nice to see you. Interest rates right now are set independently by the Bank
of England, we have no say in that right now. The fiscal commission, and this is reflected
in the white paper, has set out in some detail the governance arrangements that would make
sense for the Bank of England to ensure that Scotland's interests, I mean the monetary
policy commission just now doesn't have representatives on it but nevertheless there are ways set
out that we would seek to make sure that the Bank of England was governed that took account
of the situation across the Sterling zone. One of the other points, the Euro is very
often mentioned understandably in these discussion, but one of the reasons the fiscal commission
recommended a Sterling union was because of what is described as the optimal currency
zone conditions that exist between Scotland and the rest of the UK. But right now we don't
have influence in the setting of interest rates, as we saw from Mark Carney's statement
yesterday. That's done independently by the Bank of England. The question there on the
NHS is already independent. When it comes to the running of the NHS, Scotland is already
independent. I was Scottish Health Secretary for five years. I had complete freedom of
decision around the direction of our health services. The impact that could be felt, which
I hinted at in my speech, on the Scottish NHS is if the direction of travel of the NHS
in England starts to affect the budget for the health service in England because of how
we're funded just now through the Barnett formula that could have a knock on effect.
But operationally, in policy terms, the NHS is already independent, and I would argue
it's an example of the benefits of having independent decision-making. Our NHS is not
perfect but we've been able to take decisions that protect the founding values of our health
service as well as making sure that it's doing what it needs to do to serve the people that
depend on it. We favour the Queen remaining head of state in an independent Scotland.
We would become another independent member of the commonwealth. The Queen is already
head of state of many countries across the Commonwealth and we favour that continuing.
In terms of, you made a point which I think you were hinting at in the health service,
which is not relevant in the health service because it's already devolved, is about would
we have to spend lots of money setting up new institutions. And that's more relevant
if you take for example the welfare system. But we already pay for these things. If you
take pensions, every single pension, state pension, that is paid to somebody in Scotland
or indeed a lot of state pensions that are paid in England, they are administered from
pension centres in Dundee and Motherwell in Scotland. The infrastructure of administering
that system is already there, and of course the cost of pensions, our share of that cost,
is paid for by us through our taxes. So independence, to simplify, is cutting out the middle man.
We don't send our taxes to the treasury anymore and get some of it back, we keep the taxes
we raise and set our own priorities for that. And lastly on sovereign fund, that's a very
good question. We propose an oil fund that would have two objectives. One, a stabilisation
objective because it's a good thing that Scotland's got massive oil reserves, but clearly we need
to make sure that we are operating and stewarding those reserves in a way that is stable and
sustainable. So we've said that we would make a cautious estimate every year of oil revenues
and when revenues exceeded that cautious estimate we'd invest the surplus in a fund so that
in years when the revenues were undershooting the estimate we'd have something to draw on
to stabilise our finances. And the second objective of an oil fund would be to when
finances allowed, to save some for the future in the way that Norway has done. But any fund
like that, if it's going to meet those objectives, there has to be discipline, agreed and written
into the rules of the operation of a fund like that that meant that it didn't become
something that become a political football at elections and we spent the money before
we saved it, if you like, and that's what Norway has done very successfully. It doesn't
draw down to meet short term commitments and that's the kind of model that I think we should
emulate. >>[Hazell] Let's have some more. At the back here, so starting with the two
people immediately on your left, that's it. You sir and then the man in front and then
coming third to you sir. >>[Audience member] John Strafford, author of Fight for Democracy.
Ms Sturgeon, you must have given some thought as to what the position will be if you lose
the referendum, and in such a situation would you then call for a referendum on devolution
max? Because it seems to me that the majority of the people of the United Kingdom would
prefer that option, and it is a tragedy that that option is not on the ballot paper. >>[Hazell]
Thank you. Yes? >>[Audience member] Hi, I'm Tim Swain, I'm an interested observer. This
may be a question for Professor Hazell as much as for Nicola. I'm interested in the
implications for the UK general election in May 2015 if Scotland votes yes. If that's
the case, then there's a kind of interregnum where there needs to be Scottish representation
in Westminster but obviously Scotland is about to leave the UK. What thinking has happened
about the position -- are Scottish MPs going to be elected just for a short period of time?
Are people just going to continue for a year or two? And what could that mean for the balance
of power if for example there's something very close like there was in the 2010 election
and Scottish labour MPs potentially hold a balance of power situation in any coalition
negotiation? So, I'm asking that from a kind of UK and Westminster-centric position, but
I'd be interested in your or Professor Hazell's views on that. >>[Hazell] Thank you. And the
third one, yes. >>[Audience member] Thank you very much. My name is Khaileen McCurdy
and despite my accent I am a Scot. I'm a member of the Scottish National Party. My concern
is that because I am not resident in Scotland, I'm being denied the opportunity to vote in
the referendum. I believe I have several qualifications to do so: my father was a Scot, I served Queen
and country in the Scottish regiment, and over the years--shall I start again? >>[Hazell]
Can you come to a question? >>[Sturgeon] If the question is why can't you vote-- >>[Same
audience member] Even over the years I've had to adhere to Scots law and regulations
concerning inheritance and kinship despite living outside of Scotland. And I wonder if
we could have legislation so genuine bona fide Scots would be able to vote in what may
be a once in a lifetime opportunity for independent Scotland. Thank you. [Applause] >>[Sturgeon]
Let me deal with that one first of all, because I fear I'm the person to blame because I took
the legislation through the Scottish parliament setting the franchise for the referendum.
I've actually got an enormous amount of sympathy for what you've just articulated there. I
can totally understand why anybody who is Scottish or feels Scottish or has Scottish
connections thinks they want to vote. We had to establish a franchise for the referendum
though that had a rational basis. We firstly went on international precedent, where residency
is the overriding qualification. The franchise with the exception of 16 and 17 year olds
is the same franchise as votes for elections to the Scottish parliament or to local government
in Scotland, and it's the same franchise, again with the exception of 16 and 17 year
olds, as we use for the 1997 devolution referendum. So that's the basis for settling on that franchise.
I think the problem and we had some very lengthy discussions about this as the Edinburgh Agreement
was being drawn up, and I think both sides eventually agreed on this. The problem is
if you try to extend the franchise beyond that, it gets very difficult to know where
you drawn the line. You said you're perfectly qualified and I'm not going to presume to
challenge that in any way, but what is the cut off point? Is it if you've lived in Scotland
within the last five years or ten years or twenty years, is it you have a Scottish parent
or a Scottish grandparent, you'd then become-- it becomes very difficult so the franchise
that we set is based on sound, rational reasons but that doesn't mean I don't have sympathy
for the case you put. Unfortunately it doesn't mean I'm able to grant you the vote standing
here right now. Going back to the beginning, to John's question. Interestingly, we as the
Scottish government, the SMP, would have been perfectly happy to see a devo max question
on the ballot paper. That was ruled out by the UK government, and it was, to be fair
to Michael Moore, the secretary of state for Scotland at the time with whom I negotiated
the Edinburgh Agreement, he was absolutely clear from day one that that was a rare blind
for the UK government. So it was them that ruled it out. I'm obviously not keen on predicating
my answers on hypothesis that we lose the referendum, you understand I prefer to think
more positively than that, but I'll indulge you for a moment. I think one of the big questions
over the next few months is what the other side in this debate do put forward as an alternative
because I think the status quo, the Scottish parliament as is, has minority support in
Scotland. So people who perhaps don't yet support independence do nevertheless want
to see a more powerful Scottish parliament, and I think for a lot of people who have not
yet decided what that often looks like, how credible it is, how meaningful it is, how
guaranteed it is will be pivotal in how they decide to vote and we'll wait and see whether
the other sides come up with something that is credible, meaningful and guaranteed. I
have a lot of scepticism about that, but we'll wait and see. They've all said they'll set
out their positions in March as their parties meet for their Spring conferences, so we'll
wait and see. But if people don't think there's something credible as an alternative, I think
there are a number of people currently undecided who will then see a yes vote as the only way
to get meaningful change for the Scottish parliament. And Tim, your question, which
I think was actually a question to you, but I'll have a go at answering it first. The
UK -- I said in my remarks, it's a fact, it's very rarely been the case that Scottish votes
have a pivotal bearing on the outcome of the UK general election. Twice in 18 general elections
since the second world war. So I think it's not necessarily going to be the case that
we're in that position. Our belief set in the white paper is that Scottish MPs would
stand for election in 2015 because at that point we wouldn't yet be independent, but
it would be inconceivable for Scottish MPs to continue in the House of Commons once Scotland
was legally independent. And clearly that raises issues as I say I think it's unlikely
it will be the balance of power issue that you speak about, but that's the decision Scotland
has to make and I'm sure the rest of the UK will manage to cope with it should that be
the outcome. >>[Hazell] I'll add in this, it's a problem for the Scottish government
and for the UK government because on the Scottish government's timescale of 18 months for the
independence negotiations, assuming the referendum goes "yes" this September. Then right in the
middle of that 18 month period, halfway through, in May 2015, comes the UK general election.
And there's a possibility that that might result in a change of government in the UK.
So if Scotland has voted yes, Nicola and all her Scottish ministerial colleagues will be
involved in very intensive negotiations with opposite number ministerial teams in the UK
government. If there's a change in the UK parliament in the elections and a change in
the UK government, then she will have to start negotiating with a different set of ministerial
teams who will take a little while to catch up and might want to unpick some of the things
that provisionally have been agreed. The difficulty for the UK government is partly that possible
change of the courses midstream, and partly it's the one you adverted to, what if the
balance of power after the next election is close, and when Scotland becomes independent,
yes those 59 Scottish MPs would have to leave the Westminster parliament and at that point
that might change the balance of power and therefore might lead to a change in the UK
government. On we go. >>[Sturgeon] Very diplomatically done, I thought. >>[Hazell] One at the back.
Questions in the middle, starting right at the front. And then two hands at the back
so could you get a mic to one of these two gentlemen here and another one to the other
one. Yes. >>[Audience member] Alan French, among other things I'm an Honorary Senior
Fellow or something-- >>[Sturgeon] I know who you are! >>[Audience laughter] >>[Audience
member] And I'm one of those trying to put together what an enhanced evolution option
looks like. >>[Sturgeon] Good luck with that. >>[Audience member] I'd like to ask you since
you have said that it depends on the nature of the offer that might be made by the unionist
parties what you think an appropriate offer might be? >>[Hazell] And then, yes you sir.
>>[Audience member] My name's John Cartlidge. Towards the end of your introductory speech,
you recited a list of international organisations to which you expect an independent Scotland
would belong. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you included NATO in that list. NATO
is the last surviving fragment of cold war rivalry, all the other regional power blocks
of the cold war era have been resolved. It's difficult to see what continuing purpose NATO
serves, Ireland, Finland, Sweden have no part in it, why on earth do Scotland want one?
>>[Hazell] Thank you, and then you sir. >>[Audience member] THank you. My name is Derek Breslin,
I'm a civil servant. First of all, thank you for an excellent speech. My question is in
the same way that Scotland at the moment provides free university tuition to other countries
in the European Union, would it plan on doing the same thing for any English student that
wanted to come up to Scotland? >>[Sturgeon] Ok, Alan, that's a very good question. I should
say that there is no offer that can convince me. I'm going to go vote yes. Just for the
journalists in the room, I'm not going to be bought off by anything less. But I do think
it's a serious question because if any alternative offer is going to be credible for, and I'm
talking about folk I talk to a lot in terms of what they would think is credible, I think
it's got to past certain tests. And I think there's three of them for me. Firstly, the
substance of it has to stack up to something credible and meaningful. I think anything
that doesn't include substantial perks of tax, welfare and employment policy I think
would fail the test. Secondly, it has to be agreed between all of the UK parties, otherwise
how do we know it will be delivered. So I think they've got to come together and agree
on that package. And thirdly, I think there has to be a very clearly timetable and some
assurances as to how we can depend on the fact that it will be delivered. How do we
know that the day after the referendum, if it wasn't to go the way I wanted it to go,
they don't turn around and say, tough, we've changed our minds. So these are the three
tests I think it would have to pass. And as I say, I'm quite sceptical as to whether it
will manage to do so but we'll wait and see. John, there's a whole debate to be had and
which I'd be delighted to have with you at some other occasion if not over a drink tonight,
about NATO and the continuing relevance of NATO etc. But it is there just now. It's the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Scotland is a key part of the North Atlantic. I think
strategically it is right for Scotland and I think it would be right for NATO to have
Scotland as a continuing member. Our geo-strategic interests in the North Sea, the North Atlantic
in terms of maritime interests, for example, I think are crucial and would be better served
by Scotland being in NATO. It's not secret that we don't want nuclear weapons in Scotland
but the vast majority of NATO countries don't have nuclear weapons either, so I don't see
that as a barrier. Derek, even with journalists in the room I'm going to be pretty frank about
your question. This is a question I really hate answering. Where is Derek again? I really
hate because I don't want anybody to have to pay tuition fees to have to go to university
in Scotland. It's one of the issues I feel most -- other than independence itself -- I
feel most strongly about. I grew up in the west of Scotland, working class family, I
went to Glasgow University, I studied law, that opportunity to go to university is no
doubt one of the reasons I'm able to stand here before you today as the Deputy First
Minister of Scotland. I wouldn't have been able to do that if I had had to pay tuition
fees. My family would have no doubt strived to send me but it would have been impossible.
And I believe so strongly that having had that opportunity, I've got no right to take
it away from any other young person growing up today. So I don't want anybody to pay tuition
fees, but we in Scotland are neighbours with England that has imposed the highest tuition
fees in Europe on its own students. And we can't simply ignore the reality of that and
the impact of that. If just 10% of students from England chose to come to study in Scotland,
that would take up 80% of our university places. So if you have £9000 per year fees in England,
which I wish weren't there, and no fees for English students in Scotland, then you have
a situation where our own students are likely to be completely crowded out of our higher
education system. Now, I want English students to come to study in Scotland. We've actually
seen an increase in the number of students coming to study in Scotland, and that's a
good thing, but we also need to be able to protect access to universities in Scotland
for Scottish students as well. So it's not a position I like. I actually hate the position
we're in just now of charging English students, but it's a position that is enforced on us
by the tuition fees charging policy in England. And if it changes in England, now, I'm an
optimist, maybe one day there'll be a labour government again in Westminster that believes
in free education like it used to, and if that happens, I don't think you'd get any
Scottish government wanting to charge English students either so let's all hope that we
might get to that day again. >>[Applause] >>[Hazell] That could be the end but we've
got time for one quick round. So, starting with you sir, and hand up there, the lady
there. And last one down there. >>[Audience member] David Boardman, resident of Scotland,
living so far north we regard people in Inverness as southerners. [Laughter] >>[Sturgeon] Whereabouts?
Where do you live? >>[Audience member] Caithness Landward, just south of Wick. >>[Sturgeon]
Lovely. >>[Audience member] In the early 1700s-- >>[Hazell] Quick question if you would. >>[Laughter.]
>>[Sturgeon] I think we should go right from the 1700s to now. >>[Audience member] When
the negotiations were taken place, Scotland threatened not to abide by the Hanover succession
when England threatened to tax imports. If you're going to recreate the crown of Scotland,
will you follow English succession rules, including the prohibition of non-Catholics?
>>[Hazell] And second question... there was a lady... >>[Audience member] Hello, my name
is Stephanie Schutack, I'm a Canadian living in London. Given the Canadian experience,
having lived through it myself in 1995, with the two referenda in Quebec, I'm just wondering
whilst I appreciate you're trying to put forward a very positive case, what your thoughts are
on possibility a legacy of resentment, regional tensions and antipathy? >>[Hazell] Thank you.
And the last one here. >>[Audience member] Marcus Beltran, I work for SEL Elections,
but relatedly I also have Canadian citizenship and was there for that referendum. I campaigned
against it. I think I'd vote yes, if I could, in Scotland. >>[Audience applause.] But I
went to St Andrews in Edinburgh and only left because of the job situation. It's all down
here in London. But, would in your view and in the view of your party, what happens to
Britishness, would an independent Scotland still be British? >>[Sturgeon] Okay. David,
I'm afraid I don't remember the negotiations in the 1700. >>[Audience laughter] I'm not
sure if you were there but I'm a bit too young for that. I'm sure there's lessons to be learned
in both directions. Specifically, it's a very serious question. I said earlier on that we
want the Queen and her successors to remain head of state. We have argued long and hard
that the act of settlement and the prohibition of catholics acceding the throne is wrong,
and we will continue to argue that. I think it has no place in a modern society and I
would want to see that change as quickly as it's possible to do. And of course, there
have been changes made around the ability of a female to take precedence in the line
of succession. So if the will is there, it can be done. I hope very much that it is.
Your question -- I really, really hope, and I'm confident that yes, we can do this without
any lingering sense of resentment. And I will use every fibre of my being in any way I can
to make sure that's the case. This is not a campaign for independence that is driven
by resentment in any way, and I hope people in England will respect the fact that that
is the case, and that whatever we decide, we've decided it for good reasons and that
we will work together as close partners. I can only speak for myself and my party but
we will do everything we can to make sure that that is understood and that we don't
have any of the kind of sentiment that you spoke about. And Britishness -- yes, we'll
be part of the British Isles. I don't think it's about, this is my personal view, I don't
think the debate is about identity. I refer to my own constituency a wee while ago. If
I walk through the streets of my constituency and stop people and ask them what their national
identity is, I'm as likely to get Pakistani, Polish, Irish, Czech as I am to get Scottish
or British or European. People's identities are very personal things. We're not asking
people to choose their identity, we're not asking people to choose between flags. We're
asking people to decided how they want the country to be governed. There are aspects
of Britishness that I feel attached to. People want to call themselves British to be British,
that doesn't mean they can't support Scotland being a self-governing nation. And I feel
very strongly about that as well. So absolutely, it is not the case that if you feel British
you can't support independence. Also, it's not the case that if you feel Scottish, your
duty-bound to vote for independence either. It's not fundamentally a question or a choice
of identity. >>[Hazell] It's time now to wrap up. It's been an enormous privilege to hear
it put so strongly and cogently, the case for independence. And to hear Nicola putting
it also with such pride and with such passion. So Nicola thank you very, very much for coming
and speaking tonight. Thank you the audience, for all your wonderful questions. Nicola is
now about to leave to catch her plane. But I repeat, we hope the rest of you, please,
will stay for a drink and you'll be escorted by the stewards across the road, to the north
cloister. That's where you're heading for if you get lost. But before we head off there,
could you join me in thanking Nicola very, very much. >>[Applause]