03/10/14 Natalie McGarry To Rob Shorthouse Rob, I am writing on behalf of Yes Glasgow to ask if you could put me in contact

t with a counterpart in Glasgow from the No campaign with whom I can discuss hosting a joint public meeting/debate with for the new year. I am willing to do most of the work in sourcing a enue and we can agree a neutral chair. !b iously the representati es of either side are entirely up to them. I suggest three from either side to broaden out the debate. I would also suggest, informally, that some consideration is gi en to gender balance I note with interest your actions in contacting national broadcasters this week regarding a public debate, so I am sure that you are committed to public accountability and access to information. I appreciate that your public launch in Glasgow was by registration only, but I would not support a similar approach to a joint public meeting. !penness and transparency are key going forward in this debate and I"d moot we should make it as easy as possible for people to access information. #he dates I ha e in mind are either the $%rd or %&th of 'anuary. Gi en the Yes Glasgow launch attracted o er (&& persons, booking a large enue would be appropriate as it would be good to accommodate as many of the public as possible. I anticipate that promoting the e ent would be a joint responsibility and not limited to online websites, but in mailings and a poster campaign. )ould you support this endea our* +o you ha e a budget for public meetings, and would you be amenable to joint funding the cost of hosting the e ent* ,ast, but not least, in addition to the debate, we support hosting stalls for organisations who would like to come along. -or e.ample, on the Yes side of the debate that would include organisations like )omen -or Independence and National /ollecti e among others. /learly you are not the correct person to discuss this as it is a local issue. howe er, I welcome your thoughts and suggestions, and your passing my email to the correct person at your earliest con enience. )earing my other hat, )omen -or Independence would like to organise a one day women"s round table supported by the third sector and culminating in a debate. )e en isage this at some point in 0arch. )ho is the best person to contact about coming together to discuss the iability of this* 1ind regards To Blair McDougall: 2lair, 3lease see below forwarded email to Rob 4horthouse. I hope that one or other of you can assist me with the correct person to contact to organise this. To Kayleigh ar!ey "BT #ull$ti%e &rga'iser (or Glasgo)*:

1ayleigh, I ha e been gi en your contact details as a local area coordinator for 2etter #ogether in Glasgow. 3lease see below an email I addressed to Rob 4horthouse yesterday as I already had his email. 5s yet I ha e had no response, but hope you can help me mo e this forward. 1ind regards Natalie 0cGarry !n behalf of Yes Glasgow To Rob Murray "Grassroots Director+ Better Together*: Rob, 3lease see below an email I addressed to Rob 4horthouse yesterday as I already had his email. 5s yet I ha e had no response, but hope you can help me mo e this forward. Your name has been supplied to me as a coordinator of local campaigns, so in fact you are probably the correct person to direct me to the coordinator of the campaign in Glasgow. 4omeone has suggested 1ayleigh 6ar ey, so I ha e forwarded my email to her to her too. 1ind regards Natalie 0cGarry !n behalf of Yes Glasgow Rob Shorthouse7 6ello Natalie 5pologies for the delay. I8ll pass your note onto our Glasgow group who will, I8m sure, respond. Rob

#ro% BT stu,e't acti!ist i' Glasgo) -'a%e re,acte,.+ 0//10/13: 6i Natalie, Rob 4horthouse at 2etter #ogether passed your details onto me, and asked me to get back to you. 5 debate does sound interesting, howe er, I hardly think that the referendum campaign has been lacking in debates, especially with the upcoming 4trathclyde 9ni ersity mock referendum amongst others. I agree, if we are going to do something, then doing it ne.t year would probably be best. )e already ha e a number of e ents booked in for 'anuary, so perhaps later in the year. 3erhaps you could get back in touch with us early ne.t year*

0any thanks, Yours :redacted; 2etter #ogether Glasgow Natalie McGarry to -'a%e re,acte,.: :redacted;, I am disappointed by your response. I don"t think that a uni ersity debate e<uates to a debate in an open public spectrum. I ha e, today, spoken to 5nas 4arwar, and he was supporti e of the idea. 4hould you not wish to be in ol ed in the organisation or promotion of a Glasgow wide debate at this time, that is entirely up to you at 2etter #ogether to take that decision, howe er, we will be pressing ahead with an open forum, and will in ite political representati es of the constituent parties which support a No ote. )e had hoped that this could be an initiati e that we worked on together in the interests of open democracy. Is this a decision you ha e taken in isolation, or is it a representati e position of the 2etter #ogether Glasgow Group* Regards #ro% -re,acte,. to Natalie McGarry: 6i Natalie, 5pologies if I wasn"t clear earlier, we are supporti e of the idea. 6owe er, we already ha e a number of e ents planned for 'anuary $&=>. #hus, we would happily re isit the subject with you after the new year. Yours, :redacted; Natalie McGarry to -'a%e re,acte,.: :redacted;, I appreciate you getting back to me, and I ha e clari?ed that you ha e in ited us to get back in contact post 'anuary. #hat said, an e ent of this si@e and magnitude re<uires months of organisation and ad ertisement if it is to attract undecideds to attend. Negotiating this after 'anuary does not allow for much room to manoeu re A especially gi en the regulated period kicking in in 'une A and many of us being busy campaigning acti ely for our own side. I ha e suggested two dates in 'anuary, or we can look at the beginning of -ebruary. )e are agreeable to doing most of the organisation A subject to agreement between Yes Glasgow and 2etter #ogether"s counterpart grassroots campaign about constitution of e ent, chair and a joint ad ertising campaign.

I urge you to reconsider your intention to postpone any discussions of feasibility. 5fter 'anuary is too late. Regards

104 ,ays later111111 Natalie McGarry to Blair McDougall a', Rob Shorthouse &>/&$/=> ==7>Bam +ear Rob/2lair, It is now =$> days since we ?rst approached yourself and 2etter #ogether to discuss the joint hosting of a public debate in Glasgow. -or your reference, I ha e attached a copy of my initial communication. 5t the time C after emailing yourself, Rob 0urray, 2lair 0c+ougall and 1ayleigh Duinn A I was e entually passed to 2illy 0c/auley who replied on E/=&/=% to say that the main focus of your local campaign was the series of debates taking place at the 9ni ersity of 4trathclyde. Gi en these are now halfway completed, with the penultimate one taking place ne.t week, I am sure you and the rest of the team can turn your attention to the wider debate we would like you to acti ely participate in across the city. #here are now only $$E days from now until polling day. It would be a disser ice to the people of Glasgow to allow this period to go by without there being as wide a range of participation and discussion as possible C and I am sure you agree that a major part of this process must be public debates between representati es of our respecti e iews on the matter. )hilst our organisations represent opposite shades of opinion on the issue of independence, we can surely agree that the decision faced by the people of Glasgow and 4cotland is of fundamental importance to the future of all, whether in fa our, against, or undecided. It is precisely this latter group for whom the kind of open, public forum we are proposing is so important. )e would be delighted if both local campaigns could meet timeously as to e.pedite the arrangements for jointly hosting such a debate, including issues such as the enue, funding, publicity, format, and the in ol ement of third party campaign groups at the e ent. )e look forward to a speedy and constructi e response. Yours etc. Natalie 0cGarry !n behalf of Yes Glasgow

00/04/14 10:1/2% Rob Shorthouse to Natalie McGarry 6i Natalie #hanks for the note. I don8t think that there is a gaping hole in the debate market that we need to ?ll. I don8t really see the need for us to ha e a speci?c debate organised by the campaigns when there are so many debates organised by third parties which both campaigns are participating in. #hanks Rob 04/00/14 1:432% Natalie McGarry to Rob Shorthouse Rob, #hank you for your <uick response. 6owe er, in responding so <uickly, I don8t think you ha e taken full cognisance of the e.clusion of most ordinary Glaswegians from access to information from A and to and <uestion A both sides of the debate. /learly there are debates organised by third sector organisations, schools and uni ersities, but I fail to see where there are genuine opportunities for the general public to access the same opportunity to get in ol ed. I am sure it is not an unsurprising fact to you that the ast majority of people who will ote in the referendum do not fall in to any one of the groups abo e, are aware that some e.ist or that they hold debates which are open to people outwith those institutions or organisations. -or e.ample, the reasoning for 2etter #ogether"s refusal to engage at the beginning of our correspondence was based on the time and resources being de oted to a series of debates and mock referendum at the 9ni ersity of 4trathclyde. )hilst all and any efforts to in ol e societal groups are always welcome, it is hard to see how these e ents ful?l a wider purpose in terms of including as wide an audience demographic as possible. 5dditionally, a highApro?le, widely publicised open debate, in ol ing many of the key players on either side of the argument, and with the backing of both campaigns and their infrastructure, will attract a much greater degree of public attention than the, by their nature, smallerAscale e ents you refer to. If you can dispro e this and show where real community engagement is going on, I would welcome that input. -rom a Yes Glasgow perspecti e, we are open, transparent and unafraid to argue our position on independence. #o that end we ha e, and continue to hold meetings across Glasgow with the locales becoming e er smaller. #hese are accessible to any member of

the public and are ad ertised as such. !nly tonight, for e.ample, the local Yes group are hosting a public meeting in 4cotstoun, e.plicitly ad ertised and promoted for undecided oters. #here certainly appears to be no similar commitment from 2etter #ogether to local engagement. 6anding out leaFets at train stations has all the appearance of a sticking plaster o er a lack of real grassroots communitarianism. Not all folk are at train stations of a morning and e ening. )hilst Yes Glasgow are committed to our strategy of engaging with people in their communities, we are ery aware that people would like to be able to ask <uestions of and compare and contrast the messages from both sides of the debate. )e are con?dent enough in our arguments to put them in a public arena directly opposed yours A can you say the same* In signing off, I urge you to send me e.amples where you think genuine debate is ad ertised and attracts local and disengaged people, and whilst I wait for that, I urge you to reconsider your immediate negati e. )e ha e a real opportunity to work together to ensure that the electorate goes in to the biggest democratic <uestion of our li es fully informed. It would be a shame to let that opportunity fall by the wayside. Regards 00/04/14 1:/32% Rob Shorthouse to Natalie McGarry 6ello again Natalie I don8t agree with your assessment that people are being e.cluded. #hanks Rob 0:142% Natalie McGarry to Rob Shorthouse Rob, #hank you for your considered response to all the points in my email. )hilst you seem reticent to address the ine<uality of access to information from 2etter #ogether, we will continue to ensure that our campaign, at least, is engaging with oters at community le el. Gi en how important we consider these debates, we commit to organising them with or without your assistance and will approach representati es from the No side of the debate indi idually. 0:442% Rob Shorthouse to Natalie McGarry

2est of 2ritishG 3:302% Natalie McGarry to Rob Shorthouse Rob +espite the tone of your pre ious replies, I"d imagine our in ite to join us for a oter registration programme A which is forthcoming A won"t be met with the same pithy disregardH especially gi en that tomorrow is the 2ite the 2allot initiati e, National Ioter Registration +ay http7//bitetheballot.co.uk/n I can see no occasion for raising an objection to any attempt to increase the number of participants in the referendum. J.tending the reach of democracy must surely be the aim of all fairAminded campaigners. I look forward to a positi e response in this regard and hope that Yes Glasgow and our 2etter #ogether counterparts can coalesce around ensuring fair access to democracy. Yours etc

3:3/2% Rob Shorthouse to Natalie McGarry 6i Natalie Great to hear from you again. )e will be doing our own oter registration e ents. /heers Rob