Woodblock scotland from becoming a member of nato, but it will be a drawnout negotiation where things will not be as simple as they are being projected in the campaign. If you want to mention the u. N. Issue that might come up, but the final element that i want to talk about is the currency issue, which has become one of the core issues of the campaign. Issuethe most difficult that is going to face an independent scotland if we vote next yes next week. They have said that ultimately they would be a sensible compact between scotland and the rest of the u. K. To sort things out. I am not totally clear on that, i am skeptical on that. I think that this is a key issue because there is not real any real easy path for an independent scotland on the currency issue. Thelay out the issues options that they would have, there would be the euro option. But that is not the preferred reasonfor the very basic of the problems the euro has had in recent years. The other option would be to have scotland issue its own currency. Mostwould give it its autonomy, giving it the best chance in the long run to have an independent, effective policy. Establishing its own currency would be very complicated, very difficult. You have to establish credibility, build institutions, you would have lots of worries about this matches in liabilities and assets, currency risk. There is a real risk of economic turbulence in the short or medium term before scotland got to the stage of having a credible currency. But the there is the sterling sterlingization option, continuing to use the pound but not being a part of the arrangements in the u. K. , similar to panama. That is technically possible, but there are lots of problems with that. Scotland are in the central bank, said to have a backstop for the banking system, they need to build up some reserve fund, which would mean cutting spending for a number of years in order to build up this fund at an Economic Cost to scottish welfare spending, effectively. It has not been discussed but that would be implicit. It is entirely understandable why the snp is putting all of its money on the option that they can stay a part of the Currency Union with the rest of the u. K. We will vote for independence and we will renegotiate the terms. Ideally,cotland would, have membership in the bank of england and become one of the shareholders, essentially, of the bank of england. And they would have access to all the facilities that the bank of england could offer, the lender of last resort facilities, that that would offer to the broader scottish economy. From an independent scottish point of view that makes complete sense. All clear to me that that make sense for england and the rest of the u. K. I think that for economic reasons and for political reasons. The economic reason would be that all of the risks, essentially, would be on one side. Away to think about this is that if scotland got into trouble, if an independent scotland got into trouble, england would have the resources to bail it out. If england got into trouble, scotland would not have the resources to bail it out. It is a classic moral hazard, all the risks are on the english side. There is little reason that i could see for them to want to sign up for this kind of Currency Union, they are exposing themselves to risks if scotland were to run a different economic policy. It is a free ride on the back of the stability that the bank of england could offer them. Do aif they did decide to Currency Union, the price that they would ask for would be a very, very rigid fiscal rule. Rules, essentially asking for bank of england regulation of the entire scottish financial system. And possible even the pooling of fiscal resources, so even though scotland would get control of revenues of the north sea oil, it would then have to make some of that money available back to the broader u. K. That ation of that is notionally independent scotland under a Currency Union would not have a great deal of real autonomy, real independence in economic policy. Again, that is something that has not really been in my time in scotland, that is not coming through in the argument as to what a Currency Union would mean for an independent scotland. The establishment would ultimately want to do a deal between england and scotland, they would not want a crisis north of the border. Politically, it is not clear to me that it would be possible for them to do so. Will make you think about that is the following. The striking thing about this referendum is just how little angle and seems to care what is going on in scotland england seems to care what is going on in scotland. To go back to the last referendum, on the weekend before that, there were several hundred thousand people marching in the streets of montreal. Canadians from outside of quebec were asking correct to say. There have been were asking quebec to stay. That is not a part of the debate here. In angling, the sentiment is the opposite, resentment. If you want to go, in words that i cannot use in the brookings institute. [laughter] it is not a polite atmosphere. An election some time, certainly if they vote yes but in the next year. A seems to be impossible for nonscottish Political Party to get elected on a platform saying, yeah, we should do right scotts. Cott i think they will demand tough conditions. From the English Point of view, a Currency Union seems to be scotland saying that we want out but we want all the benefits of staying in. That is the way that it plays in english politics. And i do not think that is a politically sustainable argument. For both of those reasons, i am a little more pessimistic as to how it will play out, i giggled a complicated and difficult to not be the answer thascotland or the snp would like. Pessimism,bit of these tight opinion polls are fantastic for generalists. This is a great story for my newspaper. It seems to me to be a terrible outcome for scotland and britain. Alternative, i am not saying that it is the wrong way 59 or 49ngs, but a result, that shows a divided country and a fragile political consensus in order to take a very, very big step. That is if they vote yes, but i think that it cuts off ways as well. It is not a ringing endorsement of the union. I think we are entering a. Of political fragility and vulnerability or a lot of Different Things that mess it up. We will get into these things in the q a. Thanks geoff, i think one point that you left us with actually makes the United States is having this debate as well with our divisions internally between the different Political Parties seems quite mild, which is quite an achievement. With that, i will turn it over to jeremy to give us a perspective on how things look from here in bc where we are all where we are d. C. All sitting. Thanks, and thanks to all the anelists, i think geoff davis good view of what the presence of scotland would be on the international scene. What i would like to cover as with the u. S. Government is thinking about the scottish referendum, and also how the u. S. Would react if there is a yes vote. Mentioned, juliet the u. S. Does not really talk about this very much. Talked about some concerns over specific issues, particularly nuclear issues, but have not really taken a position on, or at least an official position on, the referendum. This is for rather clear reasons. In the first instance, it would be rude to comment on the internal deliberations of a democratic country. It is not unprecedented, sally say, for the United States to do so. [laughter] but it is impolite. And i think that it is in general a principal for the u. S. To not do that sort of thing, particularly for allies which it recognizes have a legitimate system and are engaged in a legitimate process. Again is for a clear on the u. S. Side that that is what is going on, for better or for worse. Of course, the United States have an opinion. I think they recognize that stating that opinion is not always very helpful to promoting it. The u. S. Weighed in semiaccidentally, i think, on the question of british membership in the European Union a year or two ago and it created a firestorm in britain. One of the things that it did was that it aligned both sides it turned out that both sides cared very much what the u. S. Out, and it became a lightning rod. I think that they have, since that time, taken the approach that they cannot actually what the u. S. Ell wading into the debate will even do in terms of public opinion. So it is best to stay out of it. I think that is reinforced by the sentiment that was already mentioned that the scots are adverse to being told what to do, particularly by americans. That despite the absence of opinion, we can make a fairly educated guess about what the u. S. Government thinks. Is a statustates quo power, i think that is a thing we forget when we talk about crises and u. S. Action, but in fact, as the leader of the world, there is a strong bias toward stability in u. S. Foreign policy and a strong bias against secession of any sort. Quossion is, for a status power, nearly a complete collapse of policy. The United States is not entirely consistent in this regard. Xhosa vote comes quickly to mind, and there are other examples kosovo comes quickly to mind. If you look at u. S. Policy, they saw to avoid an idea that there was a precedent set towards secession, that there was any right of secession i provinces. I think that that view is reinforced in this particular case because the u. S. Sees this as two of its best friends divorcing. And that is never a joyful experience. I think, though, that even beyond that general principle, of the status quo power, there are real issues in the United States. Some have been alluded to already but i will go over them or directly from a u. S. Perspective. I think that a critical one is the idea of a weakening of a key u. S. Ally, the u. K. From theis clearly, u. S. Perspective, a very active, very effective ally. There are precious few of those these days. , ine is a general view that the tumble that has been , theibed after a yes vote u. K. Or what remains of it would turn inward as it negotiates the exit of scotland. It would be more likely to get out of the European Union in the punitive referendum in 2017, which would further shrink british influence and british activism in the world. There is also a view that scottish exit would put greater pressure on the British Defense budget and the British Armed forces. And overall this might mean that the u. K. Would not be able to play the kind of lead role in nato that it has traditionally. Related to this, i think that there is a fear of a weakening of nato and the eu. The eu would turn inward yet again, as i had to negotiate the it had to negotiate the question of secession in general and scottish entry in specific. Because it would make a british exit more likely, that is the arc for that. Sorry, i have just been at a very long conference about that. Saidgets at what the u. S. When they took a position against rich exit from the European Union. Looking for a strong britain within a strong European Union. It is clear that a scottish exit begins that strong britain and british exit from the European Union weakens the European Union. For nato, i think that, contrary to what has been said, this is less about the Nuclear Deterrent than about demonstrating weakness and disunity at a in natos history in the face of a newly resurgent threat from russia. If you look at the nato summit last week and the president s trip to estonia, ec a strong see ao assert you strong urge to assert nato strength in the face of the russian threat. Of one of its members, a key member, breaking up. And then the type of government that was described taking over in scotland and all of the difficult negotiations over nato. That does not really appealed to the United States at this critical moment in dealing with russia. I think that while i will get to that a little bit later. I think that the third reason that the u. S. Would be against this is the question of precedent. Fiona mentioned, the leader of the crimea has already mentioned Scottish Independence as a precedent for what he would like to do. We have also heard expressions of this justice morning on npr. Of domesticsident saying, scotland can do it, why cant we. That will be an increasingly hard question to answer. This also spreads across the eu, into spain and other key u. S. Allies that could well face this question. A piece aboutve this that i think we distributed out front that talks about the and thet that this sets difficulties that might cause for the European Union. So what will the u. S. Do in the case of a yes vote . Is always a fair bet, in the face of a dramatic international developments, that the United States will urge calm. [laughter] i think that that will be the first reaction. What that really means is that they well, broadly, accept the outcome. Urging, in order to make the best of a bad situation, a fast resolution of a negotiated, agreeable divorce. Specifically to create a sense of reassurance and to minimize the disruption that i talked about that they fear. Think, quietly and do some extent from behind the scenes, push for eu nato membership for scotland on reasonably fair terms. Implied,l be, as geoff very, very hard negotiations on the Nuclear Deterrent, but i do think that they are ultimately looking for a solution. They would certainly prefer a weak member of nato to a nonmember. ,here are, as was mentioned which of nato members have romantic antiamerican notions, particularly about the Nuclear Deterrent. This fits into a wider debate. The United States will welcome a they wouldt i think prefer it to a nonmember, an irish solution. The key is that it has to be a negotiated solution and a transition. I think, very clearly, the United States will push back against the idea that this referendum represents a precedent for places like crimea, donnesck. The way that they will do that is by emphasizing the mutual decision nature, that this was agreed by both sides, and that was the critical feature which allows this type of referendum and this type of separation. It must be agreed, both by the region that is holding the referendum and by the state in which the region belongs. And they will say that this is totally different from the ukraine or the breakaway provinces of georgia where this is under dispute. I think, also, and some more speculatively, if the scots vote yes, the u. S. Will reevaluate its decision to play a fairly handsoff role in the british exit question for the European Union. They will still have the problem that i mentioned, it is not clear how waiting in will really in will help. Ing but they will have the president of not weighing in. The United States does not make the same the state twice, they make a different mistake. [laughter] i think we will see them play a more active role, the argument that they will use is that because they have a stake in british membership in the European Union, just as, for example, a country like britain would have a stake in the united membership in nato, they have every right to to weigh in. They will make their opinion much more known in scotland votes yes. Thank you jeremy. Obviously we have a lot of issues here, and we only have half an hour left, so i would like to bring in you, the audience. I can see already a lot of questions. People in the audience have a stake in this issue. Maybe threeke questions right away, we have microphones which will come out in just a second, and then i will come back to our panel to ask them to comment on the questions. Questionsns two immediately. In the back, let me know at your questions, to. Hugo, i speak for myself as a british expatriate englishman. Oceans word at this point is potentially not that helpful an englishmans word at this point is potentially not that helpful. I want to take up the idea that englishman do not care about this issue, i would hate to leave the audience with this impression. If you look at twitter, you see the day of National Unity from outside the borders, from outside of scotland coming next wednesday. You also see, and i recommend it very strongly, forgive me for getting slightly emotional on this matter, the spectator magazine launched a campaign for people outside of scotland writing in personal words what about why it is that they would want the scottish people to vote to stay in the United Kingdom. That is all that i would have to say, other than my question, obeying the rules, it has been suggested that perhaps it would be less an urgent situation in terms of what would happen afterwards. ,f the referendum has not shown and the campaign amongst it, eelinghere is a wide f of disenfranchisement in scotland and england in wales, and it is urgent that there is some sort of constitutional settlement, not just in scotland but more widely in the event of innovaro. Of a no vote. Thank you. Independent. Can you relate everything that you said in the situation to ireland . First of all, could there be and Ireland Northern ireland situation where a part would stay with the u. K. . And would ireland and scotland have better relations because they might end up using the euro , or could there even be a closer drawing of ireland to the u. K. Because it is now a club that is relatively bigger. And you. Thank you. Panel for this marvelously instructive survey. I regret the absence on the panel of the elegant governor of texas, the honorable rick perry, who has some views on secession as well. Everybody knows can you speak a little closer to the might, i am not sure that the cameras are picking it up. Ok, i regretted the absence of ric