UKC

See what I did there :p

Sounds like no real knockout blow for either project fear or team yes:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/05/alex-salmond-alistair-darli...

In reply to Morgan Woods:

'What's your Plan B?'
'I want what's best for Scotland...'

Darling didn't look particularly great, he missed a few easy points. Salmond looked like an idiot though.

I can't see anyone on the fence being persuaded by Salmond or wanting to follow him into an uncertain future.

(Caveat that I'm English)

In reply to Morgan Woods:

I didn't see any of it but I have to admit I did think there would be a 1000 post thread about it on here by now. Highly unusual for UKC

In reply to Morgan Woods:

I must admit to being slightly disappointed by Salmond last night. I disagree with his stance and policies, but have to respect his debating competence, which seemed to be somewhat lacking.

Darling came over reasonably well although, as was mentioned in the 'spin-room', he was a bit "shouty".

Gloves completely off for round 2?

In reply to Morgan Woods: My old company sergeant major in the Black Watch had a wonderful phrase to to describe Salmond ,its unrepeatable on here and not complementary.My mother was the oldest living Scotswoman at a 110 till she passed away but I dont get a vote,being born in England.

In reply to Fraser:


Interesting. Judging by the debate on the radio this morning, absolutely not. Salmond is well known for being a shouty man and perhaps his lack of form was due to him trying hard to temper his style. If there is one thing that turns voters off, it is shouty men arguing the toss whilst avoiding the question, something both managed to achieve last night. The debate continues...

In reply to Morgan Woods: It was unfortunate that there was no real way to see it in the rest of the UK, though apparently it's on the BBC parliament channel tonight

In reply to Morgan Woods:



Still can't understand why Salmond can't bring himself to put other currencies options on the table. Especially given that they are all listed in the white paper.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Apparently "Better together" are the scare campaign. To start mentioning other currencies publically (who reads white papers?) would send him into a tail spin.

In reply to PATTISON Bill:


Nonsense. You don't get a vote as you presumably are not registered to vote in Scotland, as I am guessing you don't live here.

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/the_independence_referendum/guide_to_voting.as...


I was extremely disappointed in both sides, but especially Alex Salmond. He had a golden opportunity to win over a lot of people with some straight answers. He could have risen above the answer dodging that was going on from Darling, but didn't. My guess is that he didn't want to be quoted at a later date during some negotiations with his "plan b". Thing is, there might not be any negotiations after last night's performance.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Because he reads the polls http://whatscotlandthinks.org/search?query=currency and the polls suggest that personal finance and future currency are important to voters. The polls also suggest that people don't believe there will be a currency union. However, the polls show that people want to keep the pound. So Salmond is trying to pretend that independence will change nothing (in respect of currency), because people recognise that all the other options in the white paper have major problems (are shite, in other words).

In reply to Morgan Woods:


Why should there be a knockout blow? If there was one simple point that conveyed how much better a particular direction would be, there wouldn't be the current interminable wrangling, would there?


I see what you did there.

In reply to Scomuir: The larger issue is the constitution of the United Kingdom,not simply a part of it in which the majority of UK residents have no say at all in.

In reply to PATTISON Bill:

Presumably Scotland's becoming independent would mean that non Scottish residents would lose their right to settle in Scotland as citizens of the state where they settle.

Should not giving up that right be something we should all vote on?

In reply to Morgan Woods:

Are you asserting that Not Yes = Fear ?

You'll confuse a lot of people learning English

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I am not sure why other options are necessarily shite. Lots of countries are using the Euro, lots of countries have their own currency. Instead of trying to argue to a currency union is the only viable choice he should say clearly that there are other perfectly viable options on the table.

Surely if the aim of independence is to not have a foreign power taking decisions for Scotland then we should be prepared to have our own currency if need be, if people can't even accept that then clearly the Yes camp has no point.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

In keeping with the thread title, the mirror have a nice picture of alex giving alister a hand shandy...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/alistair-darling-beats-alex-salmond-39...

In reply to RomTheBear:


IScotland would have to have it's own currency in order to join the euro (unless you mean use the euro without joining). Salmond knows that proposing a separate currency is a vote loser, so he has to plough on with the CU idea, he sees no other plan that won't lose him votes.

In reply to wercat: A lot would depend on whether an independent Scotland became a member of the EU or not.An area not clearly answered in the rhetoric surrounding independence.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Salmond knows that proposing a separate currency is a vote loser, so he has to plough on with the CU idea, he sees no other plan that won't lose him votes.

IMHO it's an even bigger vote looser to say that we have no plan.

In reply to PATTISON Bill:


A lot would depend on whether an NON-independent Scotland will stay a member of the EU or not. An area not clearly answered in the rhetoric surrounding independence.

In reply to PATTISON Bill:

I was simply correcting something that you said that was factually incorrect, and that entering "Scottish Referendum eligibility to vote" into Google would have given you the answer.

I can see where you are coming from with regards to the majority of UK residents not getting a say, but on the other hand, imagine if the entire UK population were allowed to vote? Why would we have a vote, where the majority of voters not resident in Scotland could decide whether to "let" Scotland have independence, or not as it would most likely be in that case. It just couldn't happened like that. The population of Scotland might vote for independence, but the rest of the UK's vote prevent it. Hardly a satisfactory outcome...

In reply to Scomuir: Its called democracy.

In reply to RomTheBear:



I agree, but he isn't saying that so it isn't relevant.

In reply to PATTISON Bill:

It's called self determination. Permitting votes from outside of Scotland to determine its future, even if the people were born in Scotland, would be ironic.

In reply to Scomuir:
That might be true if Scotland was an independent country at the moment but for a few years now it has been part of The United Kingdom .I have a great love of Scotland,lived there went to University there and represented the country at inter national level in athletics ,I too want to see the best outcome for Scotland.

In reply to Scomuir: So is it ironic that can vote in Parliamentary or European elections if you are a UK citizen living abroad?

In reply to Morgan Woods: No knockout but Darling got it on points.

The stance on currency needs a ballsy re-assesment if the 'Yes' side are to win IMO. Sharing the pound formally will require negotiations between 2 countries who are obliged to get the best deal for their citizens. If Scotland has no 'plan B' it puts them in a poor negotiating position.

In reply to Mike Stretford:



Ballsy is one word for it. It would need the yes campaign to persuade Balls, Osborne and Alexander to admit, prior to the vote, that they were lying when they said "no CU".

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No I mean they need to be bold and come up with a plan B, even if shared CU is still their preferred option. They may be right, maybe rUK would negotiate on it, but you can't plan a new country on 'may', and they shouldn't enter negotiations with the other side knowing they have no alternative.

In reply to PATTISON Bill:

I am of course aware that Scotland is part of the UK (hence the vote).

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Yes, I do. Do you?

In reply to Scomuir:


Suppose there is a country split absolutely equally north and south, in terms of population and economy etc. Say the north wants to break away. Surely it would only be fair if both north and south get an equal vote in the issue.

Of course here it's not equal, Scotland takes on a much larger risk than rUK. So perhaps the vote should be split 80/20, whereby all the people voting in Scotland contribute to 80% of the overall vote, and all the people voting in the rest of the UK contribute 20%.

Obviously the actual ratio would have to be done more scientifically than that, but it's also our politics, our economy and our potential rights that stand to be affected.

In reply to Trevers:

It's kind of irrelevant, as the way the vote is happening has already been decided between the Scottish Government, and the UK government:

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/facilitating-a-legal-fair-and-decisi...

Of course, there will be an impact one way or the other to the rest of the UK, but the vote just cannot be the way you suggest. Taking it further, how about if the rest of the UK decided to have a vote to eject Scotland from the UK, but the people of Scotland got no say in it, or a split weighting in the vote as you suggest?

In reply to Trevers:

No. Applying your logic might have resulted in a uk electorate rejecting irish independence which would hardly have been a recipe for a united, harmonious or successful kingdom.

There is a democratic mandate for a referendum in scotland because it was a stated snp policy and snp got the most votes. All of the uk parties recognise that democratic mandate within scotland for the current referendum. No party believes in or was elected on a platform of a uk wide referendum. Hence there is no democratic mandate and no political interest in a uk wide referendum.

In reply to elsewhere:


But ...

a) That wasn't the only question being put with the the election of the SNP. Some people will have voted SNP because they didn't want Labour/Tory/LibDem's in; some will have voted SNP because they agreed with the other policies which they were putting forward (tuition fees, free prescriptions, etc.); some of these people may not have necessarily agreed with the concept of independence.

b) The SNP only got 44% of the votes at the last election - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011#Vot...

In reply to zebidee:



But they did vote SNP, which clearly stated they were going to hold a referendum if voted back in for a second term. If they voted the SNP in, but do not want independence, then they should vote "no".


Which was nearly 18% more than Labour, who came second. What's your point?

In reply to zebidee:
a) The motivations of individual voters are unknowable and therefore irrelevant. The bit that is knowable and therefore relevant is how they voted and how they vote in the referendum.

b) Biggest party, majority govt in edinburgh. That's how it works and that is as clear as it gets in the uk. We don't have a run off between just two parties or candidates to guarantee an absolute majority.

You may think there is no democratic mandate for a referendum but no major party agrees with you.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

I didn't watch it.

I couldn't watch it.

Alistair Darling is more than I can bear (just a Labour has-been who is too heavily invested in the Westminster establishment) and Alex Salmond is one of the really good reasons for independence: we need to get independence to make Eck irrelevant and get him out of our lives.

In reply to elsewhere:


That's not what I said ... I think there is enough of a mandate by the arguments which you presented, however, I would have preferred it to be a two step referendum process:

1. Is there a sufficient mandate from the people of Scotland to spend the time and money working out what an independent Scotland would look like (i.e. figure out all of these thorny issues of currency & EU membership and do the negotiation).

2. Now that we've identified the roadmap towards independence (with CU looking like X, EU membership like Y and NATO membership like Z) is there a mandate from the people of Scotland to do that?

I'd certainly vote YES for the first of those and would be more confident in an informed decision on the second.

In reply to PATTISON Bill:

Out of genuine interest, if there is to be a referendum on British membership of the EU do you think all other 440 million EU citizens should get a say in it?

In reply to Morgan Woods:



Was it 'team yes' though?

What struck me as odd was that it was between the SNP and the No campaign. What happened to the views of those who support a 'Yes' vote but are not SNP? The Greens and others who are part of the Yes campaign?

It gives the impression that the referendum is about the SNP's manifesto and it should be more than that.

In reply to rogerwebb:




Wasn't Salmond representing the yes campaign? Darling was representing no. If Salmond wasn't representing yes then perhaps he should have let someone else attend.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


If he was he conflated Yes with SNP policy

In reply to rogerwebb:


Isn't that something that YES will have to discuss with Salmond?

In reply to rogerwebb:


This is one of the things which really grinds my gears about the Yes campaign.

I've received stuff through the door about how we'll have this and that after independence (e.g. no Trident, increased childcare cover).

Surely these are party political issues rather than independence ones?

Sure, we can't work to get rid of Trident unless we're independent but who's to say that the government which gets elected to an independent Scotland is going to provide us with the things being promised?

One of the funniest (peculiar, not haha) (but I guess unlikely) scenarios would be if it were a Yes vote for independence followed by a non-SNP Scottish parliament elected in 2016.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


One would hope so!

In reply to rogerwebb:

Why has this happened? What is the point of Scotland devolving from the UK? I't's complete madness.

In reply to Fraser:




Completely agree with you there

In reply to zebidee:

You are right but it's clear the electorate want detail on many things, many of which detail can't be given on.

I don't think the population could handle a simple in principle decision.

In reply to Saor Alba:



How rude! Is that the "too stupid" part of the "too poor, wee and stupid"?

In reply to zebidee:





I didn't understand why Darling squirmed away so much from the 'Could an independent Scotland be successful?' question. All he had to do was say 'Yes, but...' and outline the above. To concede that Scotland COULD be a successful independent nation would not have been a concession at all

In reply to Brev: Yes

In reply to Trevers:


True ... But if he did that the press would just report it as "yes campaign say 'Scotland to be successful as independent nation'" and leave out all the qualifying statements.

In reply to Al Evans: Haven't you heard? King Alex just failed to help ruin the UK economy when he was a senior economist with the RBS, he's decided to set his sights a bit lower and just destroy Scotland's instead.

In reply to zebidee:



Something I noticed during the debate was that at least twice, Salmond said the majority of Scots voted for him at the last election. Which was an interesting way of looking at it. The majority of seats yes, but when you consider turnout, did even 25% of Scots vote for him? After the Euro elections, the SNP were claiming to have got 30% of the vote; and in the same breath saying only 3% of Scots voted for UKIP. Both true, but not like for like. Things like this happen on all sides, and pointing them out seems like nit-picking, but Salmons is still complaining about the structure of the 1979 referendum 35 years ago.

In reply to :

Can someone who watched it let me know what all the references to aliens are about that I keep reading in the press? Thx

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


I watched it yesterday - it's on BBC Parliament.

In the "question" section Salmond chose to waste his time by asking about a comment made by Philip Hammond along the lines of "when Scotland is independent it will be vulnerable to attack by UFOs".
Along with another comment relating to an independent Scotland driving on the right.

He also spent some time asking Darling to remove a line on his website regarding Europe - rather than spending that time (more usefully in my opinion) actually discussing Europe.

Overall I thought Salmond performed worse than I expected, whilst Darling performed better. Probably a score draw.

In reply to off-duty:

Thx