The No case was presented by Labour's Michael McCann and Conservative Councillor Graham Simpson. The SNP's Linda Fabiani and non-party former BBC journalist Derek Bateman represented Yes East Kilbride. Father Nolan, of Our Lady of Lourdes, gently, but firmly, kept the speakers in order - not an easy task given Michael McCann's reputation for being hot-headed.
The Question Time style event covered a wide range of topics, from Defence to the European Union, from Currency to Oil Revenues. A number of questions were submitted in advance of the meeting. While most represented a genuine desire for dialogue, some were used to inject disinformation into the debate.
This was done most distastefully on the issue of immigration, with the questioner attributing the Project Fear figure of 1 million new migrants to Alex Salmond. Americans have a very good term for such misinformation, it is called 'dog-whistle' politics and it is a sign of real desperation that the No camp is resorting to it.
Perhaps the most interesting exchanges took place when Michael McCann faced a challenge from the floor. Shorn of the ability to simply abuse the audience, Mr McCann chose the tactic of inventing an alternative reality.
Yes and nuclear weapons
Early in the debate, the audience was treated to the claim by Michael McCann that membership of NATO was restricted to countries with nuclear weapons. This was a deeply worrying misrepresentation given Mr McCann's previous employment as assistant to his predecessor, Adam Ingram, a former Defence Minister in the Labour Government.
As pointed out by the Yes representatives, the majority of NATO countries have no nuclear weapons; indeed, representatives of leading anti-nuclear states play a full role in NATO affairs. Last year, the government of Norway, a founding member of NATO, hosted a conference on abolition of nuclear weapons and representatives of over 120 governments turned up. The former Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, who has campaigned against nuclear weapons, is to be NATO's next General Secretary.
The No camp representatives made clear that a No vote will be taken as an endorsement of the Trident renewal programme that will divert £100billion of taxpayers money into the continuation of these weapons of mass destruction. Many church leaders have expressed concern at this programme, and Scottish CND is backing a Yes vote as a means of halting this escalation in the UK's nuclear position.
Pulling and Not Sharing
One of the arguments advanced by the No camp is that, within the UK, Scotland enjoys the benefit of wealth being shared across the UK. Indeed, Michael McCann told the audience the UK had been extremely successful at redistribution. The problem with this argument is that it has not been the case in the past and recent decisions taken at Westminster mean it is even less likely in the future.
Increasingly, wealth in the UK has concentrated in London and the South as successive UK Governments prioritised financial services, heavily concentrated in the City of London, at the expense of manufacturing, much of it located in Scotland and the North of England. This process was described in a recent book as a '60 year suicide'.
Between 1998/99 and 2008/09, four-fifths of the increase in incomes went to those with above average incomes, with two-fifths going to the richest 10% of the population. This process of concentrating wealth in the hands of such a privileged group, many of whom live in and around London, has been condemned by Vince Cable, a leading member of the UK Government. Mr Cable famously described London as a Giant Suction Machine, draining the life out of the rest of the country.
One of the means by which income, and wealth, is distributed across society is through the welfare system, which automatically makes additional payments to those affected by any economic downturn. Not only does this help hard-pressed families, it also helps maintain demand, to the benefit of many companies.
Mr McCann was asked about the decision of the Tory-led Coalition to place a cap on the welfare bill. The cap covers spending on most benefits, including pension credits, severe disablement allowance, incapacity benefits, child benefit, both maternity and paternity pay, universal credit and housing benefit. Labour backed the cap, with only a brave thirteen Labour MPs, not including Mr McCann, having the courage to vote against the measure.
In a response that has become increasingly typical of the No campaign, Mr McCann simply denied there had been any such change. He told the audience that all items of public expenditure have always been subject to strict limits. If that is the case, we wonder what all the fuss was about when George Osborne floated the idea of a cap in 2013, and then announced its introduction in his 2014 Budget.
The introduction of the cap means that the next time the UK economy is harmed by the casino banking sector based in London, the poor throughout the UK will bear the brunt even more quickly, as the cap on welfare drives reductions in benefits for the most vulnerable in our society.
Since the hustings, as we have campaigned throughout the town, Yes East Kilbride activists have been approached by voters concerned at the disinformation spread by the No team, not just on these issues, but on a range of issues, including pensions and public sector jobs. In a piece of bad news for the No camp, it seems that presenting such a dishonest case simply increases the suspicion a No vote is a real high risk vote for Scotland in this referendum, and drives people in the direction of a Yes vote.
