whenever, is another crucial milestone on the rocky road which is the debate for the last 10 years. nobody arguing that the eu was perfect. i think it is a force for good. for jobs, services and workers rights. let's avoid all costs and wastelands. >> thank you. [applause] >> 40 years ago we experienced the first referendum, at a time when the party was divided. after it the nature of these negotiations being carried out were not entirely clear. of course, must have changed. it is now a member union of 28 states. my own party has fully embraced the eu, recognizing its importance to scotland. in contrast to the 1975 government, government ministers that were not to be free to campaign, or at least that seems that way, we are more likely to have a referendum. it is appropriate to make this referendum something that the public can engage in fully. that should mean not only votes for 16-year-olds and the team -- 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, but for eu citizen. those from other european states whose citizens live amongst us. westminster is saying no to colleagues, they want to extend the franchise -- they are likely to be affected if the decision is taken by the u.k. to pull out of the eu. i know this legislation will not impact on the referendum passed, but it is a direction of travel for this government. the scottish government is proposing a double lot, so that they can pull out -- that they cannot be forced to pull out against their will. the united states -- the united kingdom does not have a written constitution. in canada, all federal states must agree to a proposal in regards to the monarchy. so protection is not unknown. i'm heartened that -- have both support of wales and northern ireland. in 2013, there was a 46% to summation of scottish imports and 3000 jobs depend on that. there are frustrations with the eu, they need reform, the solidarity needs to be given much better respect. the importance given to subsidiarity in the lisbon treaty, we need to tend to -- we need clarification on how the relationship between countries within the eu and outside should work to ensure that the interests of those outside are protected. but one thing to reform from within, we must be perceived -- last week we heard evidence that negotiations may not be straightforward. professor keating said in relation to welfare benefits, if britain is going to restrict things there will be action against british citizens elsewhere. dr. daniel can you said, if there is a dollars between the u.k. and europe about reforming the eu for the benefit of everybody, the public may have appetite for a longer debate, as opposed to what would happen if the debate is presented as a battle with europe. that'll with europe might suit some of the tory right, but i would question is that would benefit the u.k. of course we need to ensure this debate extends beyond the issue of whether removing benefits will require treaty change. do we want to see a u.k. that turns its back on europeans, to refuse to provide financial assistance to greece and portugal, do we want a u.k. that turns its back on the refugee crisis in the mediterranean, or one that recognizes that this is not just a problem for greece and portugal, but the u.k. and eu as a whole. we seek to protect -- this is a government that talks about europe, but it's actions indicate that it is not understand europe fully. a review was started in 2012 by the tory coalition, there was a review of what the eu does and how it affects the u.k. seeking to inform debate, but not finding conclusions. this year, the eu committee said it had made no impact on public debate on the eu and u.k. relationship. as professor keating said, the review has not found any -- that could be appropriately attributed to the u.k. in brussels, promise or said that the u.k. has much to offer europe come about much to learn. the alternative is not a prospect. >> on thursday, nichola sturgeon told an audience that the u.s. would have nothing to fear if scotland were to ever become an independent nation. she works for the national party that won seats in the british house of commons. to talks implications of scotland. this is just over an hour. >> good morning, everyone, and welcome to this session on the council on foreign relations. i'm judy woodruff, and i'm delighted to be with you this morning to preside over a discussion with the first minister of scotland. nicola sturgeon was elected deputy leader of the snp in 2004. and in that capacity, she went on to become a high-profile figure in the scottish parliament and scottish politics, leading to her history-making election as leader of the snp in november of last year. she became the first woman to hold the position, first minister of scotland, but she made further history two months ago after a vigorous campaign when her party won a landslide in the u.k. general elections capturing 56 of 59 seats designated for scotland in the national parliament. she will begin by making remarks, and then i'll sit down with her for a conversation before we take your questions. please join me in welcoming the first minister of scotland nicola sturgeon. [ applause ] first minister sturgeon: thank you very much indeed, judy for that very warm introduction. thank you to all of you for being here this morning. it is a real pleasure for me to be here. it's a real pleasure for me to be here in the united states here in washington, d.c. and in, particular, to be here at the council on foreign relations, august and well-respected organization not just in the united states but worldwide. one of the things i've been reminded of often since i arrived on this visit to the u.s., the weekend, is the fact that the very deep bonds between scotland and the united states go back centuries. they run from the discussion and debate between enlightenment thinkers, benjamin franklin, to the modern exchange from university graduates, and the connections between our technology companies. the relationship between our countries is cultural, social, historic and economic. we value those links and ties there he highly. from what i have seen this week is that those ties are set to continue and strengthen for generations to come. nick is a real pleasure to be here. it has contributed to that exchange of ideas. i am very aware there is a strong development and political elements. -- in political elements. and the implications for europe and the wider international community. i will provide my thoughts on where the united kingdom and scotland stand right now. i will talk about two referendums and one election. i will talk about what took place last year and the u.k. general election that took place just last month. i look forward to the referendum on the membership of the european union that is expected to take place sometime before the end of 2017. the exact timing is not yet determined. as you are probably ever -- able to guess, the scottish referendum did not turn out exactly as i would hope it would. while the referendum might not have planned for scotland's constitutional position, it transformed scottish politics. i would argue it had a transformational effect as well. that referendum has made scotland one of the most politically engaged countries i would argue in the entire world. nearly everybody in scotland became involved in a peaceful debate about the type of country they want to live in. that has had lasting consequences. the u.k. general elections last month turnout was five percentage points higher that it was in the rest of the united kingdom. many people who perhaps didn't have any interest in how the country was governed now understood their voice really matters. they feel involved in decision-making in a way that has not happened before, certainly not in my lifetime. the referendum itself, the experience has been good for scotland. we're more energized and empowered that we have been before. to the casual observer, the u.k. elections are a clear result. it resulted in the election of a majority government with david cameron as prime minister. something exciting and much more complex. in many ways there were actually four different elections taking place last month. those elections produced very different results. the differences have very significant implications for the u.k. and how i discovered as a country. my party, the scottish national party, won the election in scotland. labor won the election in wales. northern ireland has had a different system of party politics. the multinational united kingdom voted in four different very ways. in practical terms winning enough seats can secure a majority. the question arises. what kind of mandate is that? the conservative party has the right to form the government of the u.k. and has done that, but it's not the biggest party in three of four nations in the u.k. as i discussed with the prime minister when we met after the election what happens in the years ahead will at least in part depend upon how responsibly westminster deals with the reality. the u.k. is not a unitary state. there is no second scottish independent referendum on the immediate horizon. i think it's a reasonable point to make, that if the united kingdom is to remain intact in must demonstrate it can adapt to multi-national and multiparty politics in a far more substantial manner than it has done in the past. we are very interested in governments making decisions about important issues. that is not something they are used to. the u.k. has been a remarkably centralized state. it is now clear for the united kingdom as a whole, one size does not fit all. distinct political identities which seem to be emerging in different parts of the u.k. are also relevant. the coming referendum on the membership in the european union is of huge significance, but i found in the united states is a matter of significant interest to people as well. what many people in the u.k. find odd about this referendum is both of the biggest parties say they want to stay in the european union. there is support in the westminster parliament. yet here we are standing perilously close to the exit door of the eu. the eurosceptic opinion are unlikely to be appeased i are renegotiated membership of the european union. if it seems awed in the u.k. as a whole that the referendum is looming, the approach seems especially odd for people in scotland. parties that were to leave the european union or 12%. in scotland it was less than 2%. we have seen an opinion poll showing 72% would ought to vote to remain in the european union was only 28% said they would opt to leave. that is not surprising. in scotland alone there are 300,000 jobs. i would argue for many people in scotland the referendum on the eu simply isn't a priority. scotland could be taken out of the european union again, and that's why the european question is in some ways linked to the question of how the u.k. is governed. what is seen of the scottish referendum is articulated that scotland is a valued an equal partner in the u.k. family of nations. surely, as many people in scotland would say, it shouldn't be possible for scotland forced to be overruled in the eu referendum. that is why scotland is voting for a double referendum. it is each of the nation's vote to lead. i think it's time to apply it to the united kingdom, a multinational state, to give sense to the feeling that the u.k. is a family of nations. i said last week in a speech in brussels that if scotland does find itself taken out of the european union against a vote from scotland to remained in, it could produce a demand for another independent referendum that may be unstoppable. i argue the u.k. government has it within their power to remove that responsibility i agree to the double majority we have going forward. the referendum legislation to demonstrate what we are told that the u.k. government does see it as a family of nations. i see that as a clear way we condemn it rate that weekend a data to a multinational -- that we can adapt to a multinational system. it is clear from what i said. it is clear from observing politics that these are exciting times for scotland and for the u.k. as a whole. that brings challenges but also considerable opportunities area and the coming months and years bring us a chance to build a powerhouse economy and ensure a more equal society. they also provide an opportunity to secure better governments across the u.k., and they will see a vote that will have a place in the european union. they require positive arguments. they require negotiations for political leaders across the u.k. i am sure the scottish government will take the lead in contributing to those negotiations. if we achieve these objectives, it will be good for scotland and every nation in the u.k., and it will ensure our place in europe. it helps to strengthen our friendship and alliances here in the heart of the united states and across the world. i am looking forward to the discussion that will follow. [applause] >> welcome, and thank you for talking with us. you raised the question of whether the conservative party victory in england is one of the four nations. one of the four nations holding an election can be considered to have a mandate. i guess i first question is if it is not a mandate, what is it? are you saying david cameron is not legitimately the leader of the u.k.? >> i'm not saying that. the constitution understands david cameron is the prime minister. he won the election and got enough votes across the u.k. to form a government. that is what he has done. the point i am making is a point of political reality. because of the relative size of england compared to the other nation's, david cameron was able to form a government. my argument is he needs to accept in the other nations his party did not win, and in how he governs the country that is something he should take account of, and he should respond to the democratic wishes in scotland and wales and northern ireland. in many respects how he and his government respond will determine at least in part how the united kingdom develops over the coming years. for people in scotland we are washing quite carefully to see how david cameron's government response. if westminster is adaptive, it will be better. >> are we to understand there is a new relationship between scotland and the rest of the united kingdom? >> they are partners regardless of whether they become an independent country is integral. the united kingdom has never been a united stations. we have seen an asymmetry developed. we have seen different priorities emerge in each of these nations. that does bring into focus the relationship between the scottish government and the united kingdom government. i think it is a big test of the united kingdom. is it adaptive and responsible? can it accommodate the different directions to go in, or will it proved to be unresponsive? perhaps the united kingdom will not continue as the construct it is. >> watching from the other side of the atlantic, i think many americans look at what is going on and say, if scotland were to become independent, that greatly weakens the united kingdom. what do you think? >> i have never held that view. one of the things i have been talking about in the united states is if scotland had become an independent country, there is no second independent referendum on the immediate horizon. the united states would go from having one close ally in the united kingdom to having to close allies. i don't believe that we can united kingdom in an international context. scotland would always css its closest ally defending the security of the united kingdom. -- would always see us as its closest ally, defending the security of the united kingdom. if anything, it would strengthen the position. the united kingdom can be strengthened by demonstrating how it responds to the will of people. >> in the meantime, while there is not an action right now to move towards independence, they clearly are looking at ways to have scotland exert more authority over its own affairs. your deputy leader was quoted as saying the s&p is going to push for full fiscal autonomy, which is we understand it, would mean complete control of cap and spending. is this something the s&p decided to do? minister sturgeon: short of being independent, we want to have maximum power in the scottish parliament. i am impressed you manage to get to scotland before i have. >> i have a feeling that's not so. minister sturgeon: yes, that is the position of the essence the. there are some restrictions on the devolution of packed powers. the value added tax rates could it be said differently in scotland. the want maximum fiscal powers short of scotland being an independent country. why do we want that? the more powers we have, the more fiscal responsibility we have, the more ability we have to shave our security, the more stable we will be able to grow our economy and make sure we are doing things that help us attract invest and and create jobs and grow our economy faster and more sustainably. we will make those arguments in the westminster parliament as the debate continues. >> you are not saying it is happening imminently? >> it was in a reasonably limited way. we will seek to make amendments. i think you have been reading about a particular amendment we are pursuing in the house of commons to give the right to move to fiscal autonomy. >> i am sure you are well aware this will cost 10 billions of dollars a year. is that a deterrent? back that looks at the fiscal position of scotland right now. not surprisingly, scotland is in deficit. we are not large enough to cover all of our spending. countries that are in deficit. my argument is it equips the scottish government with greater powers to do just that. it introduces the ability to tackle the fact that we are in a fiscal deficit position. >> i guess my question is how much of a priority. >> we will be arguing that. the leader of any government will be the economy of scotland. how we make sure our public services like our education system are performing. we will be seeking to argue for as much economy as possible. >> is it a good thing if scotland has its own foreign policy? >> scotland would have responsibility as part of that. foreign policy remains the preserve of the united kingdom government. i think it is good for an outward looking international country with an outward looking international government to have a voice and to seek to influence the direction of u.k. foreign policy. we seek to do that in a constructive way. there are some differences in foreign policy between the scottish government and the u.k. government, but there are many areas in which we share of you and in which the scottish government would be supportive of the position of the u.k. government. we will seek to have our voice heard and to influence the direction of policy. >> for an american audience, what is most important for us to understand to the extent it is important at all? what is important to understand about where are the similarities and the differences? you talked about the eu, your strong view that the u.k. should stay part of the eu. >> what i would say about how we conduct ourselves is that we are internationalist and outward looking. if scotland had voted to be independent, this would be absolutely the case. we want to work constructively to make sure we are resolving some of the conflicts and issues we deal with. we want to be part of the nato alliance. the message we strongly articulated and will continue will have nothing to fear from an independent scotland. if that happened they would find a strong ally. >> what do you make of all the attention you have been getting? minister sturgeon: i think it is good for scotland. there has been more attention than i can remember before. most countries would have possible -- probably thought it was enough for one year. we had a referendum in between those events. all of this combined to put a spotlight on scotland, that in many ways continues to this day. my view is a simple one. we should make the most of that. we should use that to encourage companies and businesses to invest. scotland is a great place to live in, to work in, to do business in so if you are seeing scotland on television, reading about it in newspapers and you fancy finding out more, come visit. >> before we take questions from the audience, are you getting done on this trip what you want to get done? >> i'm extremely happy with how this trip has gone. let me say we had a fantastic reception from everyone we have met in new york and washington. we are very grateful for that. the focus of the trip has been largely trade and economy focus. in new york i met with two companies that were announcing new investment in scotland. from that point of view it was very successful. the other thing has been to say to the united states audience scotland sees itself as a friend and ally and someone who wants to work on the whole region. that has been successful in getting the message across. >> the u.s. has nothing to fear from scotland? minister sturgeon: nothing. on the contrary. >> let's take questions. i believe we have microphones. wait for the microphone. we have in asking to speak directly into it. we ask you to stand up, give your name and affiliation. let's go to this gentle man. gavin: thank you. gavin wilson with ifc. we met at the world bank. i can ask a personal question. i am an anglo scot. if i was forced to choose i would choose a scottish passport. i would like to ask about political legitimacy. london has a larger population than scotland. the conservatives lost the election in london as well. one question is are the conservatives legitimate rulers of london in the same way you mentioned scotland. my wife's family are from orkney. orkney has a distinct identity. if scotland were independent, would it be legitimate for me to say they would like to be independent from scotland? and is your government of scotland legitimate government of scotland, given what you say about territorial differences and political affiliation? orkney is to questions. --first minister sturgeon: orkney is to questions. it came close. maybe in the future we will be able to change that. let me be clear. in a strict constitutional sense, the government of the u.k. is legitimate. i don't question that. i'm making a political point about the need for a multinational state of different nations voting in different ways. a sensible government would be responsive to that. a sensible government would be responsive to that. and david cameron and his government will demonstrate that they understand that whether they like or not people in scotland didn't vote for his government and through their policies and their aprech and their demeanor towards scotland demonstrate that they understand that. so that's the point i'm making. and london, of course, has its own mayor, its own devolved government in that sense, but the wider point in this, and this is to your point about orkny. i think most people in the united kingdom would make this distinction as far as regions. scotland is a nation ago is england, wales and northern ireland. that brings up particular importance as to the voting patterns and different constitutional patterns. in terms of orkney, i spent time there in the runup to the independence referendum. i've been there since then as well. there is no great appetite in orkney or shetland if scotland were to be independent for them to be independent from scotland. i'm not saying you won't find anybody, but contrary to how it's occasionally presented in the united kingdom,clamor. the scottish government is looking at what powers and responsibilities we devolve from edinburgh. my point here is not to see david cameron is not a legitimate prime minister as far as scotland is concerned. no, whether i want him to be or not is neither here nor there. in a constitutional sense, he is. but the political reality means that if he simply acts as if's got to same mandate in every part of the uk he won't be acting in a way that is strengthen being the uk and the other part of the country. i think he will be acting in a way that will weaken the uk in that respect. >> over here? >> i'm charlie stevenson. i teach at sies. since you've opened the door to what a scottish policy would be, what are your views on what the uk policy should be in ukraine and syria? >> that's a good example of where the scottish government supports the uk position on ukraine and russia, we're supportive of the international community's position. we're supportive of the sanctions against russia and have been a voice of support for the uk for the government's position and a voice of support wider than that, for the international community's position. similarly, on isil, syria and iraq, we support the international community. isil is one of the most severe threats because of the implications of that. so do not, do not think that the snp and the scottish government takes a markedly different position on the uk government on the vast majority of international issues. we don't. we are a responsible participant, responsible voice when it comes to these matters and on both of these issues, you will mott find any great difference on our position and the position of the united kingdom government. >> can you foresee a time when you might take a different view? >> my party wasn't in government at this point in our recent history. but my party took a very different view over the war in iraq and the 2003 invasion of iraq. we opposed that conflict. so there are some issues where we have taken a different view. there may well be issues in the future where we take a different view, but, you know, the war in iraq, we were not alone in the international community in terms of countries that thought the invasion of iraq and what followed on from that was the wrong direction to take, but we would always be and always will be a responsible voice in terms of these international issues. >> right here in the front row. >> thank you, marissa with northrup grummond. should there be in the future an independent scotland, i think one of the greatest of concerns in the u.s. is how the defense structure would be disentangled. and i wonder if you would speak about your advice for how defense, how defense would be handled if scotland were to be independent. >> what we set out in the referendum last year very significant detail how an independent scotland would configure its defense forces and how those defense forces would then work and cooperate with defense forces across the rest of the united kingdom, the european union and internationally. if you have an interest in that, i would go into detail and send you the work we did around that. an independent scotland, if we had voted to become independent would have established our own defense force, army, navy, an air force. it would have taken a period of years to make that transition. but not withstanding, the distinct defense forces on an independent scotland would be established. they would have inevitably worked very closely and in an intergreated way with the defense forces of the united kingdom. it's an island. the defense of scotland is important to the defense of england. it is inconceivable in any future constitutional arrangement that the defense forces of any part would not work coe thesively. -- cohesively. the difference of opinion between the scottish government and the united kingdom government on defense, and i respect the fact this is a difference of opinion between the scottish government and the united states government is the future of the uk's nuclear deterrent. partly, that is a disagreement an honest disagreement in principle. but in part, it's also a very practical concern that we have about the implications for our convinceal defense forces of -- conventional defense forces of plan to renew the nuclear tri dent. there is a current debate, i know the president of the united states is intensely interested in, about the percentage of gdp that's spent on defense in the united kingdom. one of the concerns we have is the more that defense expenditure is taken up with trident, the less expenditure we have on the conventional forces that the country really needs to secure itself and to contribute to defense internationally. one example i often use which illustrates and highlights what i think is almost a neglect of our conventional defense forces is our own maritime surveillance. as i said a moment ago, britain is an island. to scotland, maritime protection and surveillance is very important. you know, we've got a large oil industry, fishing industry, so these maritime interests are extremely important to us. the uk doesn't have any maritime patrol aircraft. so towards the end of last year when there was suspicion that russian submarines were patrolling waters, we didn't have what we needed and had to draw on help elsewhere. we need forces capable of defending the united kingdom but also contributing positively and appropriately to international efforts as well. >> let's see, i'm trying to go back and forth across the room. right there. thank you. >> diana negra ponte. with the decline in employment in the energy and energy services, what are the areas that you see as the potential sources of prosperity in the next five years, and how willing are you to accept new migrants whether they be from within the the 28 or north africa to participate in those new arias of productivity. >> thank you very much indeed. that's a very good question. scotland's oil and gas resource like the oil and gas resources of other countries are blessed to have those who natural resources. they are finite resources. that said, oil and gas will continue to be a considerable source of revenue for scotland and for the united kingdom for many, many years to come. that is estimated to be up to 24 billion barrels of extractible oil left in the north sea, so it's an industry that has a good, strong future ahead of it, but you're absolutely correct that it is a few night resource. scotland is in the very lucky position of not simply being an oil-producing country. we also happen to have some of europe's best and biggest potential, our own renewable energy. so we're also a leader when it comes to wind energy. wave and tidal energy and some of the new technologies around low-carbon energy sources. so that's a growth area for scotland and an area that we are investing in and encouraging greatly. we're also very lucky to have a number of strong sectors in our economy that i would suggest are a good effect on the future. life sciences, creative industries, our food and drink exports, which are enjoyed by many in the united states and many other countries across the world. one of the things that's important to understand about the scottish economy is not withstanding oil and gas tends to be very associated with the scottish economy, we're not dependent on oil and gas. we have a rich economy. one of the companies i spoke about having met in new york just announced an investment in scotland is a united states company active in the space sector, the manufacture of nano satellites. they've just announced a major investment in scotland, because that's one of the other areas that scotland seems to have that our universities are able of producing a real competitive advantage. one of the things we're doing which doesn't make us unique but important is increasingly, we're lucky in scotland. we've got, per head of population we have more top universities. so we're in a very good position in terms of the quality of our education. but our business sectors and university sectors are working hand in glove to make sure we're able to maximize those competitive advantages we've got. briefly on immigration, scotland welcomes immigration, and we welcome migrant workers to scotland. there are considerable numbers of polish people and people from other european union member states living in and working in scotland. actually, not withstanding the debate that is very, very active in the uk, just now associated with the european union question, european migrants make a positive of mark on our economy. we welcome migrants with the task of growing our economy. we've got in scotland an organization called talent scotland, where not as a public organization helps companies scour the world, looking for talent that can then fill skilled shortages of some of our key sectors. so we have an open economy and an open society, and we welcome very much the contribution that workers from outside make to scotland's economy. >> in the very back there? >> good morning. does it and rankle you that you were not welcomed in the white house while every royal family member has an appointment in the oval office? >> no. not in the slightest. we've had a fantastic reception in the united states. the courtesy shown towards me, towards the scottish government , has been fantastic, but also the genuine interest in scotland and where we stand within the united kingdom, within the european union, within the wider world has been absolutely first class. so i have no complaints and no rankles at all with my visit this week. >> right there, row back. mm-hm. >> nelson cunningham with mclar at this associates. they are from ayrshire. -- >> nelson cunningham with mclar and associates. the cunninghams are from ayrshire. my question has to do with monetary issues. what currency would an independent scotland wish to have? >> i hail from ayrshire. it's my home in scotland. it's where i come from, so i can report back that the independence movement in ayrshire is alive and well and prospering. the proposition on currency that we put forward during the independence referendum was an independent scotland would continue to use sterling. we would continue to use the british pound. partly, because it is our currency. it's our currency now, and there's no reason why it wouldn't continue to be our currency in the future. some people see it as a hotly debated issue in the independence referendum. i won't go into all the ins and outs of it. but many people will say, well how could scotland and england share a currency, look what's happening in the euro zone? i think the key point to put across there and i'm overly simplifying here, but the problems in the euro zone come from partly because the poorest parts of greece and the richest parts of germany have been shoe horned into one currency. that would not be the case in scotland. the economies of scotland and england are very closely aligned. we would have been what many would have termed an optimal currency zone. levels of employment are very, very similar. so may belief then and my belief is that not only should scotland continue to use the british pound if we became independent but it would be workable and valuable and successful for us to do so. >> so there won't be a new scottish mint. >> well, we have our own scottish bank. the scottish bank's already produced scottish bank notes. so if you go to the united kingdom and you happen to go to scotland, you'll get a pound note worth exactly the same amount in england, but it will have its own scottish stamp on it. >> yes, right here, second row. >> thank you, first minister fiona hill from the brookings institution. you've spoken really eloquently on so many issue here. and i think there's one area where people are really looking to scotland. within the united kingdom here and internationally, which is on this issue that you expressed about being an open economy, an open society. and a country that's trying to play a very responsible role in governance, and especially in conflicts. as you all know, there's a lot of scrutiny on scotland right now about this very question that you raised, about scotland being a nation and not just a region. we have elections coming up in spain at the end of this year where the question about catalonia and its independence will be raised. and in fact, the conflict about between ukraine and russia is what is a nation and what is a region. i think it's how in a modern era where you have so much immigration, as you said. scotland has a lot of immigrants, people who wouldn't hail back to ayrshire or anywhere. and scots are a migrant nation themselves. it's not just the scots born recently, but many generations of scots have moved about for hundreds of years. how in this modern age where it's difficult to define a nation, can scotland play a role as a model with these conflicts. and one of the big issues in the united kingdom itself, the future of the peace process, and what would happen if scotland did become independent. so i'm wondering how you can address this issue. what does a nation mean in a modern context, and how can scotland really be a model? >> i think that's a very good question. and the contribution scotland can make in the area you're talking about here is not to intervene or start to express opinions if whether catalonia should be independent or not but how we seek to resolve these debating. to get to the heart of your question, what is a nation in the modern world. scotland's in the happy position of its territory not being disputed. the borders are well understood and well-settled and agreed without any real disputes or the territorial limits of the nation of scotland are understood, but, of course, what is a nation is a more complex question, and this is where scottish nationalism, if i can use that term, which is often a pejorative term is where scottish nationalism offers a positive role model for the rest of the world. because my definition of what it means to be scottish. the nation, the territorial limits of the nation are well-defined, but what it means to be scottish in may view is-- my view is whether or not you choose to live there. it doesn't matter to me whether you come from england, the united states, pakistan, india poland or any other part of the world. if scotland is your home, if you live there, if you work there, if you make a contribution, you are scottish and have as much right as i do to influence the future direction of the country. so in the independence referendum, polish migrants who were living in scotland had a vote. they were allowed to vote in the referendum, just as people who live in scotland but were born in england or any other part of the european union had the right to vote. so that's the civic approach to nationalism that is absolutely at the heart of the snp's approach to this question. and what does that do for the rest the world? it demonstrates, and i think a referendum experience demonstrated this very powerfully, that you can resolve these complex questions of nationhood, of governance, of identity, in an entirely peaceful and democratic fashion, and that's example weigh hold up to the rest of the world. the issue of scottish independence has been debated with an ebb and flow in intensity for 300 years, since scotland became part of the union. that question has never gone away. it's always been there. as i say, it's come and gone in terms of its level of krin -- intensity. but in modern times, in modern times, not a single drop of blood has been shed in that debate on either side. a fantastic example to set for the rest of the world. so that's what we offer. it's not for us to see in any other part of the world whether a particular people or particular nation should opt to do as we do and argue to be independent, but in terms of the process of determining these things we should absolutely fly the flag for how we've chosen to do it. >> what about the other part of her question about the effect on the northern ireland peace process? >> this was an issue that occasionally was talked about during the referendum campaign. i do not believe in, you know, i don't think that there are many people in northern ireland or indeed across the rest of the uk who would have seriously argued that a vote for scottish independence would have compromised the peace process. no. i don't want to undermine or challenge the problems that northern ireland still face. but thankfully it's very well-established in northern ireland. whatever our views on the constitutional views on the united kingdom, they're committed to making sure that peace process remains effective. the establishment of a forum across the british isles called the british isle council. i'll be attending in dublin the end of next week. it brings together the republic of ireland, the united kingdom, the kingdom's of scotland, wales and northern ireland, isle of man and jersey, gurnsy. that gives life to the british isles and how we seek to cooperate and force a dialog win the british isles. if scott land had become an independent country, we would still be part of the british isles and have operated in that forum. that is a very strong representation of how those kind of arrangements can work, and itself was one of the outcomes of the peace process in northern ireland. so that, i'm glad to see that we all agree on is the importance of that peace process and the continuation is beyond and above any of these other debates. >> another question? let's see, here. and then i'll go back. >> hi, my name is steven clairemont. i work for an organization called "every child matters." recently the united states congress has been looking into the uk as a model. particularly universal credit and a lot of reforms implemented by the cameron government. what is your perspective on that, and what should u.s. policymakers be worried about the unintended consequences of looking to that as a model? >> don't do it would be my advice. i think you've got to draw a distinction between the theory of welfare reform and the practice. universal credit is bringing together all the different social security benefits into one single payment and making sure that that operates in a way that as people move into work they don't fall off a cliff in term of the benefits that are called away, outweighing the benefits they get from starting to earn. so in theory, it's a good idea, but it's not working that way in practice, because the process of reform has been accompanied by a very significant cut on expenditure expenditure. so what you find as the new systems come into place is the expenditure cuts have made some of the people who have been intending to benefit from welfare reform have actually been some of the biggest losers, and the government has been tougher on people who don't want to work. people who want to shuck responsibility, and lie in their beds all day while the rest of us are out thayerere working. -- are out working. that's not the reality of what's happened. the people who have suffered in the last couple years the most from welfare reform in the united kingdom have been people with disabilities, disabled benefits have been significantly cut. single parents, and particularly women, and those in employment for low wages, they have between them taken the biggest hit. so you may have something to learn from the theory of uk welfare reform. i would argue that you should shy away from some of the practical application of that. >> question in the back?

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Canada , Ayrshire , South Ayrshire , United Kingdom , Lisbon , Lisboa , Portugal , Germany , Syria , Dublin , Ireland , Russia , Northern Ireland , Craigavon , Brussels , Bruxelles Capitale , Belgium , Washington , District Of Columbia , Pakistan , London , City Of , Ukraine , Iraq , British Isles , United Kingdom General , Poland , Jersey , Spain , Greece , Edinburgh , North Sea , Oceans General , Oceans , Polish , Americans , Russian , Scotland , Britain , British , American , Charlie Stevenson , Judy Woodruff , Nelson Cunningham , Benjamin Franklin , David Cameron , Gavin Wilson ,