tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 18, 2014 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
the economy, we talk about how to make a difference in the lives of middle class families, we talk about jobs that are moving overseas, we talk about whether or not we're going to grow this economy. this is the ranking of the most competitive tax codes in the country. i want you to think about what those things are we can do to be more competitive in this country. we could lower everyone's wages, that would make it cheaper to build things in this country. i think that's an awful idea. we could ignore environmental regulations. that would make things easier to -- and cheaper to build in this country. but that's an awful idea. one of the things we could do, though, is deal with our tax system. a tax system that so says the tax foundation, is the 32nd worst tax system of the 34 countries. 32nd country in tax
competitiveness. now they're looking at everything. at individual taxes, they're looking at corporate taxes, you go way over here on the end, madam speaker, you get to the international tax rules. that's how well we work with the rest of the world with our tax system. america ranks dead last. . i bring it up because i'm reading from our treasury secretary,, his comments at the urban institute last week. he's talking about american corporations moving their headquarters overseas. not moving a factory overseas, but moving their international headquarters overseas. and he says this. he says, this practice allows the corporation to avoid their civic responsibilities. while continuing to benefit from everything that makes america the best place in the world to do business.
worst place in the world to do business. that's what the facts foundation tells us. i read on from the secretary's speech. he says, best place in the world to do business, our rule of law, our international property rights, our support for research and development, our universities, our innovative and entrepreneurial culture, our skilled work force. again speaking about the practice of moving your headquarters overseas. he says, this may be legal, but it is wrong. and our laws should change. by effectively renouncing their citizenship, these companies are eroding america's corporate tax base. that means all other taxpayers will have to shoulder their responsibility. i go into a tax foundation chart, madam speaker. it's a chart of what the rate is, and you can't see what the individual corporate tax rates are, but what you can see is the green lines here, that's the average corporate tax rate
around the world. it's 25%. you see another green line, that's the average by the size of the economy, that of course shifts -- gives more weight to the larger economies on the planet. that goes up to 29%. and at the bottom of this chart, madam speaker, you see in red the united states of america. with the absolute highest corporate tax rate in the world. by our own design, and i say our own, siveb not gotten to vote on a corporate tax code, but by our design as a nation, we have created the absolute worst place to do business on .he entire planet our treasure secretary calls companies who observe that and make changes because of that, so that our grandmothers and grandfathers and our pension programs and everyone who relies on the success of those companies in order to meet their fixed income demands, so
that those companies can -- he calls that a shirking of civic responsibility. i'm on the floor tonight, madam speaker, to suggest that it is not those companies that observe that america's the worst on the planet and move elsewhere that are shirking their responsibilities. it is those of us in this chamber, those of us on capitol hill, those of us in washington, d.c., who are responsible for this corporate tax road, it is we who are shirking our civic responsibilities, because we can do better. i know it's getting late, madam speaker. and i hate to take you through the math. but when we talk about tax codes and why they're so bad, it's the math that matters. this is tax liability for a corporation doing business in the united states of america. let's say you earned $1,000. you're going to pay a 35% rate. you're going to add state taxes to that rate as well. it's going to be about 39.1% on
average. about $391 out ever every $1,000. so at the end of the day, you're going to be table to -- able to take home $609 to pay your salaries, to invest in your business, to grow your company. $609. that's an american company doing business in america. how about a canadian company? doing business in canada? same $1,000 worth of income, they're paying 15% tax rate. at the national level. they're also having a proinvention tax rate added to that, total's about 26.5%, $265. hey're taking home $735. you earn $1,000 worth of income as an american company doing business in america, you take home $609. you're in -- you earn $1,000 of income at a canadian company doing business in canada, you take home $735. i know what you're thinking, you're thinking that's apples
to oranges. one's doing business in america, one's doing in business in canada. et's look further. let's say we take those same two companies, that one american company, that one canadian company, and let's say they're both doing business in the united states of america. they earn $1,000, they pay $391 in taxes, they're at the highest corporate tax rate in the world, that american company takes home $609. go to the canadian company doing business in america. they earn that same $1,000, they pay that same highest corporate tax rate that america has, highest in the world, they take home $609. whether you're the u.s. company or the canadian company, you do business in america, you pay the same tax. i know what you're thinking. you're saying, what's the argument here? what's the issue that we have to come together and solve? it's this issue right here, madam speaker. let's say you're not doing business in america. let's say you're doing business
in canada. we're going to take that same american company, we're going to take that same canadian company and we're going to look at what happens when they're doing business in canada. that american company earns $1,000, it pays the canadian government $265. the canadian company raises $1,000, they pay the canadian government $265. but it's what happens next that makes america one of the worst tax codes in the world. when you try to bring that $735 you have left over back to america, you pay american taxes on top of what you've already paid canada. so the u.s. corporation doing business in canada earns $1,000, they end up with $650 at the end of the day. the canadian company doing $1,000 worth of business in canada pays their taxes, ends
up with $735 at the end of the day. that's why companies are moving overseas. they do exactly the same business in exactly the same place as all of their international competitors, but simply because their headquarters is based in america, they pay more. the power to tax is the power to destroy. and because of the way we have chosen to tax our companies, a methodology that has been rejected by most of the rest of the world, we punish every single company that chooses to stay in america employing americans. we've been talking about it in terms ofburging king -- of burger king.
i don't know if you're a burger king fan. or tim horton. i love them both. the suggestion has been made that when burger king and tim hortons are going to get together and the head quarters are going to be located in canada instead of america, that that is somehow an unpatriotic decision being made by burger king. i want you to see the revenue by category that this newburgher king/tim hortons merger is going to have. this acquisition is going to have. about 20% of the revenue is coming from america. about 67% of the revenue is coming from canada, about 13% is coming internationally. now i go back to this chart, madam speaker. where i said, what if you're doing business in canada, if you're an american company you take home less. not a little less, but more than 10% less. if you're a canadian company, you take home more. same amount of business, same country of business location,
but because you're head -- your head quarters are somewhere different, you take home less money. if you're burger king and you're in this tim hortons acquisition, you're making most of your money in canada. so what are you supposed to do? if i asked the white house, they'd tell me i'm supposed to stay in america and put up with the absolute worst tax code the country has ever seen. this country has ever seen. but also the worst tax code anywhere on the planet. this is america, for pete's sakes. we can do better. it's not that burger king is choosing to leave america, it's that america is running burger king out. and that, that responsibility lies with us here in this chamber. it's an arcane issue called worldwide tax system versus a territorial tax system. when you're in a worldwide tax
system, and there are only seven countries left in the world that do this, you double tax your companies. you charge them a tax based on the country in which they earned the money, and then if they bring that money back to america, you charge them nother tax on top of that. most nations on this planet, most nations with first-world economies, they use what's called a territorial tax system. that means whatever country you raise the money in, you pay the tax in. and when you bring that money back to your home country, you are not double taxed one more time. this is the issue we ought to be talking about. we shouldn't be talking about patriotism. we should be talking about common sense as it relateses to having america -- relates to having america compete in a global economy. i ask you, madam speaker, if we had the absolute worst tax code in the world, if we have the
absolute highest corporate tax rate in the world, if we have the least competitive international tax system in the world, what do you think is going to happen to international businesses when they make their decision about whether or not to locate in america? they decide, no. hey decide no. madam speaker, i want to talk just a little bit about what president obama has said. it's called corporate inversion, when you move your headquarters from america, you acquire a different company overseas, you make that your international headquarters, it's called a corporate inversion. you may have seen that in the news. here's what president obama's had to say about it. even as corporate profits are higher than ever, there's a small but growing rube of big corporations that are fleeing the country to get out of paying taxes. fleeing the country to get out of paying taxes. president obama goes on, he says, i say fleeing the country but they're not actually doing
that. they're not going anywhere. they're keeping their business here. but they're moving their headquarters. they don't want to give up the best universities, best military, the advantages, they just don't want to pay for it so they're technically renouncing their u.s. citizenship. well, that sounds very similar, very similar to what i read from jack lew a little bit earlier. that's the party line. coming out of the white house. i go on. these visits that -- these businesses are playing by the rules but these companies are cheary picking the rules and it damages our nation's finances. it makes it harder to invest in things like job training. he says, i'm not interested in punishing these companies, but i am interested in economic patriotism. as a government, we've crafted the most punishing tax code on the face of this earth. we have created the longest list of disincentives to locate
your business in our country that is available anywhere on the planet today. and the question the president is asking is, i don't want to punish these countries, these companies, but where is their economic patriotism? madam speaker, where is our economic patriotism? the tax code is something we created. do you believe for a moment if the 435 of us in this chamber got together to write the tax code today we would write the absolute worst tax code available anywhere on planet earth? i don't think so. if we designed this tax code from scratch, we'd have done something very different. but this is where we've ended up. i'll close with this from the president. now the problem is this loophole. they're using it in our tax laws, but it's actually legal. my attitude is, i don't care if it's legal, it's wrong. i don't care if it's the law of the land, i don't care if it's
the law, they shouldn't do it nyway. i go to the courts for answers and it's interesting that this idea of economic patriotism. it has been argued in court time and time again. i quote from the second circuit afffirmed by the supreme court. anyone may so arrange affairs that his taxes shall as low as possible. he is not bound to choose that pattern, which will best pay the treasury. this isn't even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. we have had the suggestion, economic patriotism, you should pay more. it's not our fault, it's the congress. not our fault. it's your fault. you should be doing something different.
>> everybody does so, rich or poor and all do right, where nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands. taxes are enforced extraction, not voluntary contribution to demand more in the name of morals. taxes are extractions, not voluntary contributions. madam speaker, i want to say to all of my colleagues, if you don't believe you are paying enough in taxes, we'll give you an address to the treasury department. taxes are extractions. if you are interested in a voluntary contribution, i can tell you where to mail your
check. tax law exists to provide not just certainty to employers, but also to investors and sbraurs and to families and also to employees and those who show up to work. the law provides us with certainty. we as a government have created the worst tax environment on the planet and the leader of our government wants to blame the companies that have stuck with us day in and day out the last 50 years. no wonder companies are leaving us, the wonder is that companies didn't leave us long ago. it is a punishing environment to do business in america. so what's the solution? you know i'm not going to come down here and identify a
problem. i want to talk to you what president obama, who i have quoted tonight, what secretary jack lew and what they had to say i is this. est way is through tax reform, closes wasteful loopholes and simplifies the tax code. i'm with him 100%. with him 100%. what the president has said i support 100%. and that's not what he is saying on the campaign trail. and he said what is best for the share holders and best for its customers is unpatriotic. if they choose to try to improve the lot of their customers, theirholders and there is an obligation to subject yourself
to what this congress, thr country has created. maybe jack lew had a different idea. only tax reforms can solve the problems in our tax code that lead to inversions. i know what you are thinking about. you are wondering if i made a terrible mistake because i have been talking about how president obama said it was unpatriotic and how he said they ought to fix it and they have a duty and ought to fix it and they ought to stay. no. these are the very same men saying something entirely different, because they know not on the campaign trail but in mysterious rooms where they are talking about policy, only way to take america into the next century and make us the most competitive nation on the planet and get those jobs in america is
fundamental tax code reform. burger king can't do fundamental tax reform. tim hortons can't do it. warren buffet can't do it, only this congress can. we can and we should, in fact, our ways and means chairman, has tried. let me go on and get the other side of the issue. i quoted folks from the white house. house speaker john boehner said this, instead of dividing people for political advantage, the president can endorse our push for comprehensive tax reform or convince senate democrats to act. let's solve the real problem here. it is the real problem here. orst tax code on the planet.
dave camp, everyone agrees that tax reform is the real solution that will keep companies moving their headquarters out of the united states and more importantly, encourage more businesses to grow and hire and increase wages for american workers. that's what it is about. grow. hire. increase wages for american workers. it's not about passing a mandatory minimum wage. that will kill jobs. increase people's salaries while doing away with others. we support environmental protections. there are some regulations that make no sense, but the regulations that protect us, we noticed those. it's not going to the time when rivers were on fire, the answer
is in fundamental tax code reform so we can grow, so we can hire, so we can increase merican wages. >> they tell a story that tells a story about the big corporations who happen to provide a lot of jobs to american families but that's not the story they tell. they tell the story of greed and per version in the tax code. but when they get down to
serious policy conversations and get off the campaign trail and what makes the difference, they all agree, fundamental tax reform makes the difference. how are we going to get there? we have seen the shenanigans that go on and seen the desperate need that requires we get there. how are we going to get there? the president's croum on jobs and competitiveness has been cleared. this is the president's council. we have to view our corporate tax rates as part of our national package for job-creating national investment. if you want your corporate tax rate tore attracting jobs, you don't want them to be the worst in the world, you want them to be the best in the world. the president's council knows this. hurts business competitiveness
and american workers and cries out for reform. the president's council says our corporate tax code hurts american workers and business competitiveness. they don't conclude that businesses are evil and greedy and out to stick it to american taxpayers. they conclude that businesses are struggling and trying, but it is the tax code that is the albatross. worker bears the rising share of the corporate income tax. i'm going to read that again, because we don't have that conversation enough. these are not my words but the president's council on jobs and competitiveness. a growing body of research shows in a world of global capital, rkers bear a rising share of
reduced employment opportunities and lower wages. united states of america, worst international competitiveness, anywhere on the planet. worst international tax code anywhere on the planet. united states of america, highest corporate tax rate anywhere on the planet. largest disincentive to do business anywhere on the planet. president's counsel on jobs and competitiveness, these giant corporate tax rates don't punish corporations, they punish american workers. my friends, madam speaker, we don't have corporations that pay taxes. we have corporations that raise prices. we don't have corporations that pay taxes. we have corporations that lower
wages. we don't have corporations that pay taxes, we have corporations that lower return on capital. they don't pay taxes, they collect taxes from people who buy their products and from their employees and lower returns, capital, our seniors on those fixed incomes. high corporate tax rates don't punish corporations or punish employers, they punish employees. they punish middle-class americans. the president's council recommended a move to that territorial tax system. they recommended eliminating is investigate teage of an older time, only seven countries in the world. largest economy to use it. it advantages us more than
anybody else. the president's council recommends eliminating that territorial tax system, not double taxing. the current world wild system makes investing in the u.s. more expensive from a tax point of view than re-investing abroad where they are not -- think about the lun arch cy. bringing in more revenue through higher tax rates, what we do to american companies is discouraging them bringing money home and encourage them to keep the money overseas. i'm thinking about building a new factory and expanding productivity and those things that grow economies. the president's council says, our tax crode encourages those things to happen for other
citizens. i want those things to happen for our citizens. corporate tax reform is the answer. i'm going to close in a place that made me happy. the bad news is, we have tied one arm of the american economy behind america's back. we have burdened ourselves with the worst tax code the world has ever seen and we are demanding that american companies follow our disastrous model or else face the accusation that somehow they are unpatriotic. that has been the white house's solution to a slow economy and rapid job deterioration. madam speaker, what you can't see on this poster is ronald rage and's solution. when he was selected, he faced some of those same nick fer economic challenges and ronald reagan came together with the
u.s. house of representatives, led by democrats, and passed fundamental tax reform for the ast time it was passed in this country, 1986. they said he couldn't do it. they said it was too big. he did two things that this white house, this administration have not done and that implore them to do, madam speaker, two things. number one, he just didn't talk about it. he released a proposal of his own. his treasury department released two proposals. our treasury department giving speeches on why it's the corporation's fault, ronald reagan's treasury department offering solutions to tax proposals for the congress to examine, improve and pass. ronald reagan said this, madam speaker.
he said just as sure as ruth hit home runs and rose can break records during this session of congress, america's tax plan will become law, but it's going to take all of us and all of you letting the folks in washington. he led, madam speaker. i thank you for your leadership. i ask my colleagues for their leadership and together we can make sure that american jobs come first and american economy is first in the world. the speaker pro tempore: is there a motion? mr. woodall: i move the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes
spending bill to keep the government open through december syriano offering a two rebels fighting isis. and the white house said that the president will sign it. >> good evening. today the united states continues to build a broad international coalition to degrade and destroy the terrorist group known as isis. france will join in against targets in iraq.
are pleased that french and american service members will once again work together on behalf of our shared security and our shared values. more than 40 countries including have offered assistance as part of this coalition. strengthening the iraqi government and providing unitarian aid for the iraqi civilians and doing their part in the fight against isis. congress andthat the majority of democrats and a majority of republicans in the tose and senate have voted support a key element of our strategy. theplan to train and equip opposition in serious of that they can push back these terrorists. i believe wet week are strongest as a nation when america and congress work together. them and thank congress for the speed and seriousness with which they
approached this issue. in the bipartisanship that is a hallmark of america at its best. we had ramped up our assistance including resistance to the syrian opposition and we will provide to help them grow program will be hosted outside of syria and it will be matched by our increasing support for the iraqi government and kurdish forces in iraq. this is in keeping with a key principle of our strategy. the american forces do not and will not have a combat mission. their mission is to advise and assist our partners on the ground. i told our troops yesterday we can join with allies and partners to destroy them without american troops fighting other
brown dwarf in the middle east. the strong bipartisan support of congress shows that americans are united in confronting the il with their barbaric murder of two americans, they thought they could fight us or causes to shrink from the world, but they are learning the same hard lessons as petty tyrants and terrorists who have gone before. when you harm our citizens and threaten the united states, when you threaten our allies it does that she does not divide us -- to help those with -- those who seek a better future for all paper. today our fights against terrorists continue. we are destroying their vehicles, we salute our dedicated pilots and crews who are carrying out this with great
skill. of our troops yesterday, the american troops support them and their families and as we go forward one nation i would ask all americans to keep their thoughts and families in our prayers. >> and now onto the bbc's coverage of the scottish independent vote in -- on c-span. early asve results as 1:30 a.m. eastern time. this is what scottish democracy looks like tonight. air,t boxes arriving by heading to the count center, the turnout has been huge. those arguing for independence say that this is because people think people in scotland have been channeling that legitimate anger into
something positive during this campaign. if this is a yes vote we have a path forward, managing the transition to an independent country. it becomes much more challenging but still vital for that energy to make sure that we can build alliances with people, elsewhere in these islands who share the anger. you need a head for numbers thestrong fingers -- nocturnal arithmetic continues and it will for several hours yet. >> a new video has been released which shows a british journalist -- john cantley, senior in syria was captured while working as a newspaper journalist. he is seen sitting behind a desk, dressed in orange clothes, delivering a scripted speech into the camera.
the united states senate has approved president obama's plan to harm and train moderate syrian rebels to fight islamic state militants. this is part of washington's campaign against the group, to take control of territory across syria and iraq. detectives in london investigating the disappearance -- has named a latvian elder as a suspect. he served a prison sentence in latvia for murdering his wife, going missing a week after -- disappeared last august. the high court will decide today whether to allow a challenge to a rule introduced by the government each year to determine whether victims of domestic abuse receive support
and child cases. and now back to scotland decides. >> welcome back to the referendum results, in the next half-hour we hope the feeling -- andchael and campbell jim will be joining us and ricky -- in scotland. in the meantime, let's join angelina westminster. >> you would think that westchester would be happy with the results so far but we have just had thunder and lightning over the parliament. you can make of that what you wish. simon, if this is a no vote, scotland will expect the westminster party to deliver on does, what aret the consequences for the rest of
the u.k.. >> everyone says that the greater thanare never before but this is a no vote, westchester will declare victory and there'll be complaints from wales, i think that england will honestly be ignored. the kick in the teeth for the establishment was supposed to be -- i believe that this is a kick in the teeth for the establishment. i think it is fantastical because it is downhearted for independent supporters. they are unleashing the constitutional revolution -- across the entire country and we have seen is the scottish insurgency going -- for that injured -- insurgency with a whole lot of promise. potential to not
only rewrite the relationship with scotland and we actually think that will be welcome for many people because the disillusionment that you see in scotland -- that is not just confined to scotland. it is england and wales as well. we need a constitutional convention,. >> this is what i want, too. i am right with you on that. i am being a realist. >> let me tell you where you may be wrong. the head of steam building up on labor and conservatives -- this is home rule for scotland, there has to be in it for england. backed ventures will not allow mr. cameron to rule without -- the point about england is what you do with england, if there is a parliament for scotland, we have been there for quite some time.
parliament for england and there is a central english government, i passionately believe in it. in a sense this is a tragedy for england. the wests issue of question is answered with english votes only -- where does this leave labor? should labor support this? >> it labels them a majority. they're able to implement the legislation. the way around than this to have a constitutional convention, with the responsibility to regions. regions,not win in the that is why this is such a game changer. basically a glorified -- with different powers and this is
different. i think that the need to rebalance the british constitution will fuel the sense -- >> is it conceivable that westminster can give scotland a major tax raising part, that is what they promise them. >> that is the one thing that they will fight. but that is a very limited point. the essential point is that westminster never changes unless it has to. i wish that it would. it just isn't going to happen. >> is scotland is just independent for the next --eration -- the demographic of over 65 -- if this is settled, to maintain itself, they all have to be radical with wealth grievances -- there will have to be a new constitutional sector.
>> i hope that you are right. >> may be just a little bit disconsolate there. >> let's go back to scotland decides. >> now, i think that we have the results in. let's go straight to the results in shetland. >> the referendum question in follows, fours 9900 -- 9950r no, one with 50 rejected ballot papers. that concludes the counting of vote for the council area, thank you very much. [laughter]
>> we have the resulted from shetland. 5565,n see the votes, 9951. 64% for the campaign and 36% to the yes campaign. margin, and you were saying earlier, we were looking at results in this kind of area. solid a surprise, very liberal democrat territory, travis scott -- was the leader of the liberal democrats in the scottish parliament, after he -- until he resigned after the disastrous result in 2011. this is one of the places that kept the same with the liberal democrats, --
>> your thoughts on that? >> this is no surprise. when we talk about the debate with a referendum on whether scotland should separate from the united kingdom, there are parts of the islands that feel like edinburgh -- holly rudy feels like a long way away. itwhen it comes to that, comes from alastair carmichael himself. if the rest of scotland broke away from the united kingdom, they may want a say on whether or not they stay with the u.k.. the musician and broadcaster ricky ross -- great to have you both with us. this was you a short while ago. there you go. with that body language. >> and i don't even drink. what is your sense of this now?
no inconsistencies, over 90% turned in, i think it is great that the 60 and 70-year-olds ave voted, and it shows us lesson for the rest of the u.k. that perhaps time has allowed for us to change the rules for the next house of commons. people used to say that 60 hot -- 16-17-year-olds, what do they know? they have been so engaged, so switched on, i think that if there is still time during the election, i would give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the general election, and the biggest decision that has ever been taken, to watch the next u.k. election on the telly. >> are you on course for victory? >> i think so but it is too hard
to say. i have a degree of optimism but i was joking about the results i think that there is a it is tooconfidence, early to say. this is very close, it is my home city. it, i wille to win not try to read on all of the arguments -- and we have not given up winning in glasgow this evening. >> what is your sense of this at the moment? >> jim and i have been having a big agreement on all that stuff about young people. this has been energizing part of the campaign. i asked about this on television last week. i am delighted by it. i think young people make awful lot of bad decisions, but my
thing as musician is it is much more difficult to be a young musician, it is a lot more difficult and i think that the very sharp end of policies on employment and housing, for them, i think jim is right. -- them to go to the next 1 this isr question -- has -- this has been a two-year campaign. not concentrate on the end, let's let it take its course. >> 29 results to come in. i will get your response to this contributor, and i'm sure that nick and sarah will have something to say. michael, good morning to you. >> good morning to you, your sense of this so far? --what they have been saying i agree with jim, that the first
indications are positive to keep the united kingdom together, but it is too early to say anything, definitively. >> if it does proceed in the direction that you find that mean?what does what needs to happen in terms of change and the way that the united kingdom is structured with government? >> all three party leaders, u.k. party leaders have said that after a no vote things will change in scotland, there will be enhanced powers, even before this intense stage of the campaign started, different with overlapping ideas. feelcottish people can that their voices are heard more clearly. of course there needs to be a balance as well. if you are hoping that we can secure this for scotland in short order, we also need a
similar urgency to make sure that other people in the united kingdom and northern ireland and wales and england have their andes more clearly heard respected, than ever before. westminster needs to change, that is one of the messages of this campaign, i think that there is a willingness on the part of the prime minister and the government, that this change can happen as rapidly as possible. by thisus what you mean -- those who don't think that this is going in the right direction. >> the overwhelming majority of people wanted scotland to stay. all of my colleagues wanted the united kingdom to stay. is a no vote and people will be delighted, that our country has stayed together. we know that gordon brown
spelled out a timetable that was party with all three u.k. leaders to ensure that by the time of the next general thision, people knew what settlement in scotland would look like. similarly we need to bring people from all parties, we don't have fiscal allegiances, to inform a conversation about how we can change things in westminster. the conservative party has -- that hasecision a lot of support not just in conservative circles, if decisions are taken that affect only the people of england, or northern ireland, then we need more clearly to respect the wishes of the -- that particular country. >> english votes for english law would now be implemented despite the fact that you have had a manifesto that has not been
implemented. >> i think everyone recognizes that during the course of this campaign the need for westminster to change has been across the board. if we're going to have the changes to the scottish parliament, with conservative labor and liberal democrats, that does mean change at westminster, we have been clear in the past about some of the types of change that we wanted, but it has been interesting to astutely acknowledged that things have to change as well. and we also have a consensus for the nature of that change but the heart of the change has to be recognition but in the same way that scotland feels quite rightly that there are proper matters that a scottish parliament should reserve to itself that can only be decided with the majority in that there are issues that the people of england and northern ireland will want to see delivered --
>> this would mean that in the studio -- they would not be allowed to vote on schools, would not be allowed to vote on health and not be allowed to vote on certain budgetary , if large chunks of this determined to the scottish parliament. >> we are several steps ahead of where we need to be today. by definition, if you're going constitution, with a measure of consensus -- what has been delivered with the proposal -- they will see this much later today, about the direction of this but it is important not to get ahead of ourselves, not to say that this is the precise model. it is important to have broad principles, this is widely accepted across -- irrespective issuesy, there were some
that need to be decided in a way that respects the majority opinion. >> will the prime minister statement be based on the these think that this will add more to the rather vague details that we have had so far? >> i think that the prime minister will be very clear about the direction of travel, if he wants to lead the government in. it may seem boring but it is critical that we do not preempt the decision, that the scottish people are going to take. throughout the rest of this morning, but, if, as seems -- it this is not just about the need to make sure that the interests of scotland, it will bring them together and what it means for the people of england.
>> we spoke for a matter of months -- to deliver what, if anything? >> corrine brown outlined this, publishing a command paper that sets out the principles and details that having the draft close early in the new year and by the time of the general election, a clear legislative proposal that will be implemented after the united kingdom general election. i think that we -- what we need to do is i'm if -- have a similar sense of urgency. legislate off to of scotland -- to safeguard the interests of people in england and wales and northern ireland? >> could this be an english parliament for the region, that the liberal democrats would want? toi don't think that we want go down the route of an english parliament. i think it is always the case
that you want to look at how you can improve local governments, in cities and elsewhere. i think that there needs to be change to ensure that westminster worked better for the people living in wales and northern ireland. >> very good of you to join us early in the morning and thanks very much, we will look forward to what you have to say later. joinovernment chief whip, -- joining us from westminster. let me show you what is going on -- we are expecting a declaration there pretty soon. now, again, this is an area where given the long-standing tradition -- of westminster and holyrood, it is well-established that the campaign should be doing very well. declarationting a soon within the next 10 minutes or so.
the first area that votes yes. i wanted to michael -- to take something up if i may. he talks about the plans for father the evolution. the conservative party is than themore powers conservative party to the labor parties. is the labour party going to move to the position at giving more power to the scottish parliament. >> we will see if we are still on the united kingdom by tomorrow morning. you give me too much credit. to think ahead. but if we are still in the u.k. this time tomorrow, the later part -- we are going to have to get together. each of these parties is going to have to compromise a bit, the together quite a package. result, even know the
but we are going to get working tomorrow and putting that together. >> is the labour party planning to offer more to the scottish parliament that has previously been outlined? >> all three of us can't put together the original offer, so i think that the details of that are for the details on scottish parliament -- >> he made clear that he wants a form of english votes for the laws, that means that jim murphy, representative of the scottish agency -- would be barred from voting on a whole this isf things -- something labor has already resisted in the past. >> i would make certain that we are -- >> we spoke about this and other
vague terms to see what the prime minister says, but on that basis we get to the point where they cannot say certain things because of the london and the london assembly. got a patchwork that has constitution evolved over time and it will continue to evolve, and i don't -- that muchision is clear. my own preference for the people of england -- my preference would be a form of devolved power in the region. it is not for me to tell the i'm notf england -- telling them what to do and i am not going to tell that anyone either. youhis is a great word and can use the correct one if you want. we were about to have a vote where we would have a very clear-cut answer.
result. perhaps that is the direction. , peopleg about scotland's are feeding into the same story. over. the same discussion there is a sense of talking to itself. perhaps that will be reflected regionally or nationally. your response? >> i'm pleased. that is the reason why we have one there. meetings in time in the open air. they were great gatherings. very passionate. the worries that some people would have had were argued.
[indiscernible] there is some unique things to the west. when you have an independent counsel they would have expected us to be in the yes column. there will be a degree of disappointment. thing, there is an engagement. i'm pleased. >> 86%. your thoughts? >> he is correct in pointing out , we have to isles be careful about extrapolating from it. this is one of the places where the s&p have had strength. hand, substantial
migration from south of the border. not much of the way of social deprivation. socially not necessarily the kind of place where you would expect yes to do well. you would expect yes to be ahead. the results we have seen, this is the most disappointing for the yes side. not many voters there. councils.d the three this smallest of the councils on the mainland. we still have an awful lot of votes before anybody starts counting chickens. x good to point that out. what else are you picking up in terms of the train so far? claimsink some of the that have been made by both sides about the turnout are against the evidence. we have the yes side saying they
would be successful getting people out to vote in areas where people normally don't vote. we have discovered the places with the lowest turnout, places like glasgow are the places where turnout is usually the lowest in scotland. conversely, maybe towards the is the placesh where the turnout is the highest, the places where turnout is always high in scotland. at ise are looking for turnout to be higher. thedifferences between council is a familiar one. i think all we can really say is more people voted, but it is not clear either yes or no if they
were successful at getting people to the polls >> thank you. a live dim -- libdem voice. one of the great figures of liberal democracy in this a man who beat o.j. simpson on the running track. you observe these elections for a long time. yes campaignng the conceding, it is a big story if true. >> they were the hotbed of nationalism for a long time. >> the great mp challenger. >> who was eventually the
challenger. western isles is interesting. mp is alsoster him smp. you would expect it to do better. >> absolutely. much earlier we heard simon jenkins saying if it was a clear no vote, westminster would revert back to business as usual. will be the result? >> political suicide for the parties in scotland. no going back. you can't be more public than the front page of the daily record. for them to renege on that pledge would be disastrous. if you want issue free then in scotland, abandon the pledge that you made on the front of the paper.
>> you have to work at what the pledge means. you and the conservatives have different traditions when it comes to federalism. >> we do. there are a lot of people who courseen saying over the of this evening politics will never be the same again. that's true. context, it is not like it was before. there is no reason why any one of the main parties cannot find a reasonable accommodation which allows them to say jointly and separately we have delivered on our pledge. >> if scotland gets the advantage and continues, a lot of english voters are going to say what about us? do you think english votes for english laws is inevitable? >> i think there be a federal
solution. i am encouraged. if you have increased powers for northern ireland's and wales, canidea that scottish mp's vote on english education is unsustainable. >> it is interesting to hear a liberal democrats say that. the west wales question, the less you can argue that there is legitimate claim to vote on english methods. look, would that actually a federal system? a single british chamber for foreign affairs. >> large-scale economics. and welfare.
i'm one of those who recoils at the idea of your pension being different whether you live outside. >> an english parliament sitting in westminster, and dealing with english education and health. >> you don't need another building. all you can do is say this is the english parliament for three nights a week. reformhouse of lords will be part of that. the prime minister is making a speech to the nation tomorrow. i hope he does two things. >> he'll be on the edge of his seat. pledge,ould repeat the and make an acknowledgment to gordon brown in the timetable he set out. he should say to his english colleagues you will not be left behind. it is not for the scots to tell
the english what it should take. a two-pronged approach. >> there is a long way to go. many people tonight talking that the end of the united kingdom, what we are going to see is a very different thing tonight. >> that was an evitable. key,you have unlocked the ,ringing it into sharp focus change was inevitable. everyone expects this aggregation of power and influence simply is unsustainable in the long term. if you are a member of parliament, or the northwest, or westminster, i would be complaining about the fact that my region, sometimes bigger than scotland in population, are not
been properly doubt with. >> thank you. we have heard from the west lothian answer. >> thanks to them. before we start again, before we take up and see which of the very significant councils are still to come, we have just had full results. 28 results to go. in the meantime, i'm going to vp.k to david, an mv thank you. he is so patient to talk to us. >> good morning. >> i am just wondering, first of all, your sense of how it is going. independence is
not going to happen. we can't tell until we see what is happening in edinburgh and glasgow. it is a good chance it is not going to happen. i have been listening to this nonsense from political parties. talking about this for some time about rebalancing the constitution, in rebalancing english with scotland. they will talk about it before cameras out of bed. >> what would you like the answer to be? what is it going to be in terms of its proposal? >> i'm going to leave that to nigel to discuss. we are looking at a different way of doing things. chance, iis decent speak as a scotsman. we need to rebalance the entire constitution.
north of england has been ignored. seen, they have started to take a legal season, and labor seats in scotland. >> ok. we will wait to see what nigel has to say. for viewers watching who want a clear guide, are you talking about an english parliament? >> no. i don't think we are to the parts of england. we are talking about a rebalancing of the constitution. this discussed for a long time. we couldn't understand why scotland was getting this without actually having a plan b. it is another case of mr. cameron -- [indiscernible] everyone has to be included in this.
more powers for scotland. >> our view generally is if mr. salmon wants to put a ferrari in every drive in scotland, he is going to play for it -- pay for it. why should we leave this scotlandthing with which has let scotland down, let young people leave the country because you want to make money, you want to prove your life. lots of scots leave the country. it is time we get rid of the social statement and let's see an entrepreneurial ideas coming through. you can have entrepreneurial scotland. because of years of labor ignoring it.
democrats nobody gives anything for. >> when you talk about rebalancing the relationship between england and scotland, what do you read as the vote? what is the main desire? >> fairness for scotland. if scotland wants to do something more expensive than inland, then you can believe going to the lowest part of the process. we would rather have more laws [indiscernible] given to local councils. we want to see the whole thing taken to the local level. that is what we have always been about preview what a sea change in that way.
it has to be up for discussion. they cannot go on the way it has. we have to do things in a different way. nigel will way that out. >> was he right to accuse salmon of provoking aggression? called, wee man they start off the european campaign. by the end of that he was threatening to seize land. businesses,ening coming up threatening businesses and people, threatening revenge. what can i say? it is monstrous. it has been a disgrace. >> you don't think many will forgive. >> he must take a great deal of the blame for that. they will blame him for this.
>> we will get people to respond to that. thank you for joining us. >> that's the most absurd five minutes i've had on television tonight. these people are not players in this campaign. they come here to cause trouble. they are racists. i believe honestly they are here to disrupt rather than help the discussion. we were talking before, this here, at this policy the end of the vote tonight we could have been coming toward the scottish constitution, something we don't have. that was a very clear part of the yes vote. talking to democratic process. word --the [indiscernible] something that was cobbled together, and is done in closed
rooms. this is my worry now. what we had on the table was something we thought was going to be thought through. this idea that we have a deal here in a deal there, that doesn't work for me. >> i would have thought we would talk about a scottish constitution. of i'md is an example not a fan, [indiscernible] -- whatever he was talking about. that is ludicrous. ,efore we get carried away scotland being uniquely different from the rest of the u.k., 90 thousand scots voted.
[indiscernible] 90,000 peopleder voted for them, it is full of sectarianism. we tolerated it far too long. it still goes on. it is much under control these days grade that is something to be thankful for. we shouldn't think they are uniquely open-minded. angst on thatuch pointless determination. >> on when to stop you. ricky did say some serious things. >> i'm here. do you want answer that? >> the scottish national party have a lot of people appear frightened. many have expressed how upset
and frightened they are. and of the sort of behavior you businesses,ainst people have felt intimidated by the smp. if anybody is racists it is the smp. they don't like the english. they are ridiculous bunch of people. quite frankly they have demonstrated their behavior over this campaign. >> that is really sad. it hasn't been that kind of campaign. >> yes it has. >> let me finish. i have friends who are in with people who have moved to scotland who will be on the no side who vote on the yes --for reasons that are not intimidated or so on. i'm not a member of the scottish national party.
we just believe in a change scotland. there is a coalition of people on the yes side. >> no. it's snp. >> i wonder if i can defend them. i understand business has gone up. it has not been in the mainstream. i've had some of it myself. stuff, it isn't true. we've spent two years fighting things that we have against one another. i am sure you can jump in. we have spent two years
emphasizing differences. now you have to spend the rest of the time trying to work about what we have in common and make success of whatever scotland has decided. let's not try to rerun the referendum. [indiscernible] >> you are starting your campaign now. we can obviously see that. the biggest thing you've gotten wrong. >> can i recap? earlier,y mentioned it there have been a racist element , -- why did you say that? >> i think it is about fear. the fear wasn't here before. something that i have never seen. the distrust of foreign people. >> we are a welcoming country.
polish people for yes, african people for yes. a fantastic campaign of the new scottish people, some have supported the no side. they are phenomenal can to be tears to scotland and we welcome them. i am sorry that my children and many young people are very distrustful of what you have brought into this. your policy onay immigration is the least racist ,ecause we won't allow anyone not just the european union to come here, but the commonwealth, we want a points system like austro you. un-racistget more than that. this man is talking nonsense.
lots of people feel very intimidated by the snp. >> we will talk about the campaign later. thank you for joining us. moment to is a good take, where are we with these results? we have four results and. we have 28 to go. there is our grand statement. the yes vote, 36,907. four results. 28 to go. the eyes of the world were on this result. former u.s.d by the permanent representative to nato
in washington. thank you for joining us. what is your perspective? >> first off i think there is great interest in washington in following these results. it has been a topic throughout the day. we had the ukrainian president in town. i think there is a great deal of respect in washington for the scottish decision, whatever the scots decide. we have a great admiration for scotland, we will make it work. perspective of the bigger security issues and economic issues, things that affect u.s. interests, there is a perception in washington that it is in the u.s. interest that scotland remained with the u.k., so there is hope for that as well. whatever the outcome is we will stand by and make it work. >> i am thinking of the social media contribution from the president where he said the u.k.
is an extra nine partner for america. i hope it remains strong, robust, and united. is it appropriate for the andident to be in effect, intervention in the campaign? >> i think he is expressing an american interest, and it is appropriate for the president of the united states. i don't think that anyone in the nine states feels comfortable telling the scots how they should vote. that is a decision for scottish voters. we have to be careful not to try and pose a view on that. we can express our own interest but we have to respect the scots. if it is a no vote, we have a long way to go, there will be a sigh of relief in the white house? >> indeed. we look at things like ok, what's nato?
is the u.k. able to contribute effectively to the common challenges we have, such as fighting isis are dealing with russia? if the u.k. is going to be distracted negotiating over internal arrangements and how to break up the union, we are going to lose a valuable partner. there is an interest there. it is legitimate for the united states is say this is how we have to deal with the world but we look for in a strong partner like the united kingdom. at the same time, there is a very strong sense year, and it is not just myself, people respect the views of voters. if the scots decide one way or the other we will deal with whatever that decision is in the most positive spirit possible. >> a final point. final point. was that the main factor or many -- or one of many a factors? >> no.
states point of view, we see a lot of global challenges. we are at a stage where we are very hesitant with how far we want to go in grappling with them. the airstrikes against isis now and putting together a coalition to take on isis. dealing with russia and how do we help ukraine try to put a check on russia's ambitions to rewrite the map of europe? the united states has always states asthe united an independent, strong, valuable partner, valuable source of advice, contributor, able to mobilize other things that the u.s. cannot. that partnership has been tremendously valuable. u.k.orry in this is that a distracted by dissolving the union would be a less effective partner for the u.s. in dealing with global challenges. part of that.mall
>> a very good for you to join us. thank you for giving us your view on the american perspective. a quick word from ricky and then jim. jim, the international perspective. >> it was not the major factor. the family, the community, a sense of pride, a sense of what is best for scotland. on occasions, the international issues visited the referendum. we could not avoid the fact that things happening in syria and iraq and the trade that is happening for most of british citizens, that would be there, but that was not the cutting edge of the referendum. >> when president obama and bill , does that have any effect at all? >> i think people have interest in it but it does not influence
them at all. it spiked a bit of interest. i think scotland, we like the fact that the whole world is watching. we are not an insecure people. i would say it is interest rather than influence. >> there were no big game changers. these things did not affect people -- the way people went into the polls. i think that one of the great things -- this was a great exercise in democracy. we recommend it. i recommend it for people -- [laughter] i think it is great and people actually had the discussion within themselves and within the family. that is what was healthy about it. >> there was a real nervousness on downing street that foreign affairs might affect this in the opposite or action. not helpfully. the possibility of another war
in the middle east along with the liberal democrats had a history of being able to say they oppose the iraq war. that would drive people into the yes camp. i know that downing street spoke to the white house. the issue of this referendum was a factor. i am not saying it was the definitive factor, but it was a factor. in. think we have a result >> can i have your attention please? the scottish independence referendum held on the 18th of september, i hereby certify and declare the number of ballot papers counted in the local government area is 54,601. the turnout is 87.4%. the total number of votes cast
in relation to each answer to the referendum questions in this area is as follows -- outcome for yes, number of votes, 27,243. 27,329.for no, rejected. [applause] rejected, 29. >> look at those figures. 27,243 yes, 27,329 to the no's. let's look at the percentages. a very fragile majority. let's have a look at the percentages. 49.9% tothe no's and yes.
0.2% on a very high turnout. what are your views on that? >> it was in the middle of our addictions. -- predictions. this is the area around port glasgow. there were reasons to think that there might be people who would vote yes there. it has been a traditionally labour area, but the kind of voters that the yes campaign was trying to tempt over to their side. that is a very, very tight result. it is astonishing in that regard. it, it ishave taken not bad going. area with the highest catholic population in scotland.
there was an association with catholics being more likely to vote yes. it was said. whether that would turn out -- but it was often said. some of that was associated as purely supporting the association football club. >> it is a remarkable fact, whether it turns out or not, but catholics have voted in large number yes. havears ago, you would never considered that. for a long time, the catholic were very suspicious of what an independent scotland would look like. that we are even discussing catholics as large numbers of yes voters shows how much things have changed. i am not trying to draw ricky into this, but certainly, the first minister did not miss an opportunity in favor of a no vote.
not know how many times he said it. i do not think that should be part of our politics. democracy, i get the procession. i do not know about hanging chads in florida, but a very long time. [laughter] >> ok, let's have a look at some of the images. we have responses to that. [applause] that was the scene a couple of minutes ago when the results came in. john is standing by to tell us what he makes of the results. >> i think this is the furthest
straw in the wind that the no side is going to emerge victorious. it is the kind of place where, if the yes side were going to win this referendum, we would require them to be at least narrowly ahead here. in the end, they are narrowly behind. what we are hearing from some of the other places, we are hearing the no side are ahead. probably yes would have to be ahead if they were going to win the referendum. entirely cleart about how large these victories are going to be. you have already heard from another spokesman on this no side acknowledging the strength of the yes vote. i think i have heard, quite remarkably, the scottish conservative leader, who was the
arch opponent, both suggesting that the proposal may well need to go further than anything that has been put forward by the political parties thus far. >> just looking ahead for the next hour, where are the areas where the yes campaign will have high hopes of reversing what is going on? >> the truth is, we have yet to get results from parts of western scotland. we are going to have to start seeing yes victories. it is also true when we come to places like perth and angus. we are going to need to see yes victories. the smp stronghold and look at the west of scotland. if yes do not start winning their, it will be clear that no have one -- won. >> i would like to start talking
about the places still counting. it is a useful thing to look at at this stage. brown'sludes gordon constituency. , the highland region, aberdeen itself. the city of aberdeen is still to come. west lothian, which we discussed earlier. there are some very big centers yet to come. we are going to pause for a second and then we will come back and get some more results. >> thanks. getting reports that alex m and almond has left aberdeen airport in a private jet with his wife, but the destination is has produced some
suggestions on twitter that i am not going to repeat on the bbc. we are joined by rob. good to see you. sterling rising in the asian markets. the equity markets will probably rise when they open. what are the overall macro economic implications if there is a no vote? >> quite a lot of uncertainty gets eliminated. there was nervousness among investors. the britishf banking system would be in doubt for a bit. aboutwas genuine concern yes.iscal implications of if it is a very clear no vote, sterling will bounce back, having fallen, and that actually carries other implications as well. there would have been a
depressive impact on the entire u.k. economy. that would delay the bank of england decision about raising interest rates. on the basis of where we are looking at these polls now, i would say an interest rise before the election remains a very much in the cards, possibly as soon as november. >> let's look at a couple of things that westminster has to do. the talk of -- a promise of more income tax powers being sent to edinburgh. labor conservatives do not necessarily agree on what these powers should be. >> it is quite striking that you from thethis ratio three parties, that there will be more powers handed across on a pretty tight timetable. actually, the positions are different. interestingly, have
said all income tax can be decided by the devolved scottish government. labor has said no. likenk it is something three quarters of the income tax decisions will be taken by the scottish government. interestingly, also, labor appears to be saying it is sort of one directional. it is the scottish government which has put up taxes to protect health care, for example , they could do that. it is the sort of suggestion that they would not be able to compete with tax rates elsewhere by cutting taxes. quite a lot of important stuff to be negotiated. with big implications for what the scottish government would be able to do. >> the shadow chancellor is not necessarily very happy with this. >> he is obviously thinking that chance afterhis the election. we will see. i think his concern is what
scotland appears to be getting here is a pretty attractive-looking deal that would restrict the ability to spend elsewhere. in particular, parties have committed themselves to this continuation of above-average as ac spending in scotland result of transfers from the southeast of england. saye are some people who you cannot, on the one hand, have scotland with the increased amount to raise taxes, but also being subsidized twice as much by the south. i think that will be a contentious point. salmond has done a good job shouting to the world that scotland is a prosperous nation with above average income. perhaps scotland should not get quite such a big subsidy.
>> on the labour and conservative side -- >> i do not think so. i think this pledge by the three leaders of the main union, i think there will be members of all of their parties who will try and see if that can be unpaved a bit. at a time when money will be tight for the whole of the u.k. for years to come because we still have a big deficit to cut, some will say that is unfair. >> thank you. let's get back to scotland surprise. >> thank you for some thoughts on the economy, finance, currency, and the permutations. we will be joined by the scottish labour leader and the scottish minister for public health. good of you to join us. we will get your thoughts in just a moment. let's have a summary of the news, first of all.
>> hello. i am carol walker with a summary of the main news. the first results in scotland's independence referendum have been declared. they have all voted no. , the turnoutger was exceptionally high. the final result is expected between 6:00 and 7:00 this morning. the queen is expected to make a statement this afternoon. chris mason reports. >> this is what a good start looks like for the no campaign. off for one activist and those wanted to keep scotland in the u.k. -- first results >> yes, 16,350. -- 19,000
[applause] minutes later, hundreds of miles north -- >> yes, 4,883. no, 10,004. 5,669. no, 9,951. >> it was a no vote in the western isles. changes coming everywhere, says the government of westminster. enhancedcan secure evolution for scotland in short order, we need a similar sense of urgency to make sure other people within that united kingdom, northern ireland, wales, and england, have their voices more clearly heard and respected than ever before. >> here, ballot boxes arrived by
air. huge.rnout has been those arguing for independence say that is because people are angry. scotlandk people in have been channeling that legitimate anger about a broken political and economic system into something positive during this campaign. if it is a yes vote, they clearly have a path forward to defining a constitution, managing the transition to an independent country. if it is a no vote, it becomes much more vital to capture that energy and build alliances with people elsewhere in the islands who share that anger. >> you need a head for numbers and strong fingers for 91 of the 32 count centers across scotland. the nocturnal arithmetic continues and will for several hours yet. >> a new video has been released with a journalist being held
captive by islamic state stream us. extremists. he was captured while working as a newspaper journalist. in the latest footage, he is sitting behind a desk, dressed in orange clothes, delivering a scripted speech into the camera. a plan to arm and train moderate syrian rebels to fight islamic state has been approved by the united states senate. it is part of president obama's campaign to tackle the militants , who have taken control of a swathe of territory across syria and iraq. two adults and six children are reported killed in a shooting in florida in the united states. the shootings took place in the town of bell, about 30 miles west of gainesville in the north of the state. a grandfather killed his six grandchildren and his daughter before turning the gun on himself. that is it for now. now let's get back to scotland
decides. ♪ >> welcome back to "scotland decides." we have five results in. we have 27 to go. i am told that renfrewshire is to be declared shortly. when the process was running the votes through and looking at the tallies, this was the response of the no campaign. there is no mistaking their joy. this was just in the past few minutes. so this is in the lead up to the declaration. there is a hint there -- more than a hand. they in renfrewshire think have more than enough. that includes paisley.
xander's --s out as well.'s patch the labour leader in scotland, thanks for coming in. , are those people right to be hugging? scott'soks -- i mean, pretty under mustard it. it is good news, on balance. in the broad trend of what has been happening this evening, , we areess to viewers not going crazy, but what is the trend telling you? isit feels to me that it probably going to be a no vote. struck by -- >> i am going to stop you there
to let's go to renfrewshire. >> can i have your attention please? accounting officer appointed for renfrewshire of the scottish independence referendum held on , herebymber, 2014 certify and declare the total number of ballot papers counted in the referendum is 117,612. the turnout is 87.3%. the total number of votes cast in relation to each answer to the referendum question in this area is as follows. 66., 55,4 no, 62,067. [applause] 79 rejected papers. the reasons for rejection are as follows --
>> so it is 3:52 in the morning. we have our six results and it is from renfrewshire. a victory for the no campaign. 466.067 to 55, that means, in percentage terms, as follows -- 47% to theno's and yes campaign. your thoughts? >> this is a much bigger area. renfrewshire, that is where paisley is and douglas alexander is. there have been votes for the s&p, msp. it was areas like this where we were not sure. they used to follow labor and now quite often vote with the smp.
>> hold the thought. we are just getting a declaration. officer appointed for the dundee city local scottisht area at the independence referendum held on 18 september, 2014, hereby certify and declare the total number of ballot papers counted in the referendum in the dundee city area is 93,592. the turnout is 78.8%. there were 92 rejected ballot papers. lack of an official mark, 25 for voting in favor of both answers, six for writing a marked by which the voter could be identified, and 60 unmarked or void for uncertainty. the total number of votes cast
in relation to each answer to the referendum question in this area is as follows -- 20., 53,6 39,800 -- [applause] >> well, those are the results from dundee. and it is a yes victory in dundee. let's look at the margin. 39,880.o the turnout significantly lower than we have seen elsewhere. it is 79%. look at the percentage share and you have 57% for the yes campaign and 43% for the no. thoughts on that? turned as the first yes vote. it is no supplies. it is the city in scotland the
most expected to go yes. it is a good result for them. not quite as good as they had hoped. they could have expected to do a bit better in dundee. >> good to see you, brian. your take so far? >> it looks as though it will be a no-outcome. a couple of things emerged from that, if it is a no-outcome. based upon the perspectives -- the prospectus that gordon brown drove, will westminster generally except gordon brown's analysis of the certainty of ?estminster i suspect some will dispute that. secondly, the plan is self remains fairly vague. will detail be put upon that? will it be in line with the detail that mr. brown was suggesting?
that would involve substantial tax powers. if it is, what will those tax powers be? no, a couple of councils and it is still leaning towards a no direction, what will be the impact on the s&p? i suspect that will be contained introspection because they will have the u.k. general election to retain their power. all, try to drive forward the option. , seven results, 25 to go. there is a lot of leeway here. if it is a no, what is the message that alex salmond deliver? >> he will say the people have spoken, above all, in huge numbers.
you are talking about turnout around 90%. there is an expectation there of something happening. even within that 80%-90% turnout across parts of scotland, if the result from that is no, i am sure alex salmond will drive on the expectation of rather more than just tinkering with the parts. if you get substantial transfer , thaters to scotland raises the issue of what is to be done with the government of england? it is a government that has been largely subsumed and forgotten until very recently. in the veryo do it rushed timetable suggested by mr. brown and endorsed by the others, for reasons of expediency, they were doing quite a little bit because they felt they were losing. timetable,t on that then the idea of creating a federal system involving england
is simply unfeasible. any area yet to come which could deliver exceptionally good news for the yes campaign? >> it had to be bigger than that in dundee, frankly. being a city where labor has past.overned in the holding a number of seats in both parliaments, they had to do better than that. you are still looking at the other cities. the really big councils have yet to weigh in. >> it is interesting to see. nicholas sturgeon at their headquarters. she may be at the other headquarters. i am not sure. interesting to focus on her given what has happened in this campaign. >> she has a critical role in the campaign. she fought an extremely hard
fight. she is smiling extremely bravely there. how would she other? there are many more results to come in. the city that she represents, glasgow. she played a big role in the campaign by offering a perspective other than that of purely examined. she argued for a social justice perspective. she played a pivotal role. a secondas elected for time, it was not meant to be this. he was meant to be the leader. she looked like she was not willing and he stepped in. she became the deputy and was loyal and able for 10 years. the future for her will be in the snp. the future would be the leader of the snp. >> the way it has been. >> i