"
Guardian Scotland (@GdnScotland)
25/08/2014 15:53
I envy the Scots. If only we English could also shake up our democracy | Suzanne Moore
@commentisfree #indyref
"
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
White Paper (THE #indyref thread)
(2915 posts)- Started 11 years ago by Morningsider
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Anybody watch the debate on BBC1 this evening?
I thought it worked pretty well. I didn't see the prior debate on STV but I think BBC Scotland did a decent job: the chair fulfilled his role; the audience contributions were nearly all pertinent and incisive; the speakers were in the end reasonably civil to each other despite a bit of a slanging match in the middle.
I'm not getting into who 'won', but I do wonder how the media will report this. A bit weird with the Bank Holiday in England, no Newsnight on BBC2 so it will be interesting to see how the papers spin the debate,
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
TV review: victory for Salmond, but BBC also loses to STV
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Aggressive Salmond crushes Darling in second independence debate throwing future of the union into doubt
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
If you'd watched the earlier debate you'd have seen how an effective chair would have prevented that awful 'pub-bore talking over each other' sub-Paxman piss poor excuse for a debate degenerating into a stairheid rammy.
Salmond won it. No question. But he won it in the way he 'wins' FMQs - by talking over his opponent. Of course, he can only win because Alastair Darling was rubbish pretty much from start to finish, and because Salmond's questions were much better focused and framed in much better 'closed' terms - questions to which there was no winning answer. Credit for that. They'd worked out how to box Darling in. Personally, I think they slipped up by letting him do it in the leaning on the lectern style that make him appear smug and condescending, and which people dislike him for. If he'd delivered the questions in the 'statesman' like style he's supposed to be adopting, he'd might actually have convinced people.
Salmond also had the audience. The Yes supporters were much more vocal and, presumably by osmosis, had learned from the booing of Salmond when he wouldn't answer the currency question last time to groan when Darling returned to that theme tonight. By coincidence, Yes Scotland tweeted a prepared graphic of Darling as a one-trick pony almost immediately. I'd love to know how that audience was recruited. I know how the last one was.
So, Salmond with the gloves off and up for a proper debate, with lines ready on the questions where he'd been weak. Darling sent in with a Dad's Army wooden rifle (which is the best he could ever have). But both of them debated in a way that would only appeal to their core voters. Pity the undecided. And so long as they remain undecided, nothing changes.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"And so long as they remain undecided, nothing changes."
Yes, but various commentators (afterwards) said -
'Debate won't change many people - more likely to decide after talking to people and going to local events'.
'Salmond "win" will energise Yes side'.
We'll see.
(Soon - fortunately!)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Yeah, I can only assume that the strategy was to energise Yes to go out for that final push. After the last debate, which Salmond screwed up, a friend who's heavily involved in the Yes campaign posted this,
"I went up to the parliament for a wee demo. Motivation and morale is ebbing, which only has a little bit to do with the lying ****s on the other side and their all too eager cheerleaders."
My emphasis. I assume the problem was watching the debate being thrown away.
If that was the tactic, they're right. Debates don't shift undecided voters. You need your people on the ground energised to get people out to vote. So he's done that tonight.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Following tonight's second live TV debate of the referendum campaign, we are conducting a survey on the voting intentions of Evening News readers. The questionnaire requires you to tick the appropriate box(es) & should take no more than 2 minutes to complete. All answers will be treated in strictest confidence and will be used for analysis purposes only.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
from UKPollingReport "ICM pre-recruited a sample of 1,155 people who said they would be watching the debate live and who agreed to complete the survey immediately afterwards, which they were duly sent." Only 44% of those who said they'd watch and answer the survey did. I didn't watch all of it either. I guess more people would be put off by the rabble rousing than encouraged by it.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Did anyone else need a stiff drink to get them through that debate? I had braced myself for an hour but went on for 90 mins. Salmond much better tonight but you have to ponder if he has a wee Achilles heel if darling beat him the first time? I like to think of Darling as Jake La Motta all beaten to a pulp but saying to Alex salmond as sugar ray robinson - I didn't go down Ray. Darling as La Motta that is making me laff anyway. salmond will have rallied his troops which they did need as they are exhausted given been campaigning for more than two years. The audience was very vocally in favour of salmond and some of the questioners seemed to be fifth columnists as it were? The woman who asked the currency question was cheering salmond at one point? Maybe she is enthusiastically undecided? Alternatively if the audience was fair balance then the SNP supporters were shouting a lot more. Kind of how it seems on the streets? Fewer in number but a lot noisier? So back to the streets for more door chapping I guess.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Insto, I don't recall the exact details but they did tell us before the debate started how the audience had been selected, by a polling organisation (forget who), to "balance yes and no and add in some undecided voters".
If you check out the intro on iPlayer it may reveal this information.
I note Curtice is on 6music news this morning saying "Salmond may have won the debate but it may not sway many undecided voters", so he agrees with you.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"BBC also loses to STV"
Interestingly though, when I flicked over to STV briefly later that evening, I saw that they were re-broadcasting the entire debate in full "pictures courtesy of BBC Scotland".
Posted 10 years ago # -
Personally, I think they slipped up by letting him do it in the leaning on the lectern style that make him appear smug and condescending, and which people dislike him for.
What about all the striding forth from the lectern, palms outstretched? The gazing in to the camera? We looked at each other in amazement (or something) when he did that.
I wish Darling had asked Salmond how he was going to guarantee that every Scottish government from here to eternity was going to give all the cash to poor children and the disabled. It looked to me as if Salmond was getting an independant Scotland confused with an SNP/Salmond government.
Posted 10 years ago # -
So I made no effort to see the big telescreen fuss. Just had a week loafing in the Highlands, but took a day out to work with Yes Scotland.
Inverness is massively Yes. Whole pubs and businesses are publicly out for independence. The town is covered in posters and banners, the local farmer where we were staying had just packed out the village hall by inviting Tommy Sheridan to speak and the No Thanks/Better Together shop is a sort of bleak surrealist installation staffed by shell-shocked aristocrats.
Best line from the street stall in Inverness High Street;
Me;Can I interest you in a leaflet Sir?
Older Gentleman; No thanks, son. I've got a thousand of those at home I need to get out this week.
I can't quite imagine how the British State will reassert control over the North if we do vote No. Maybe the upgraded A9 will be the new Wade road facilitating rebellion's just reward?
Posted 10 years ago # -
I wonder if we will get a breakdown of how each area voted after the referendum?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"It looked to me as if Salmond was getting an independant Scotland confused with an SNP/Salmond government."
Not confused. A Yes vote is a mandate on the White Paper after all.
The counts will be announced in each local authority. As the chief returning officer puts it - there will be 32 counts but only one result. I have my little score card ready so see how close I get to each local authority's result.
Posted 10 years ago # -
There was an interesting remark near the end from Darling, looking like a defeated man frankly, when he referred to "this election campaign". He immediately corrected himself saying "well, it feels like an election" but it was quite revealing of the mindset, and the overall situation we witnessed. The whole thing was essentially set up as Labour vs SNP, and that's how the media are largely framing the debate too.
Yet when I speak to people about it, with some exceptions most seem to say it's NOT about Labour or the SNP, but about the future of our country.
Bit of a disconnect there.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Some of you may have heard of the astroturf operation called Vote No Borders, funded by London based Tory millionaire Malcolm Offord and launched by the BBC. They have now released a catchy pro-London rule song with a video featuring a cylist!
http://www.naden.de/blog/bbvideo-bbpress-video-plugin -->
[+] Embed the video | the song planned since 2012 ;" target="_blank">Video Download Get the Video Player We are very excited to share with you the song and music video that is released today in the national press.
The hero of the music video is Jimmy Cooney, an 82 year old RAF veteran and former semi-professional cyclist. Born and raised in Edinburgh, Jimmy captured the attention of members of the Vote No Borders team when they met him in a pub one evening in 2012. The video also features real voters from across Glasgow and the surrounding areas - not actors - who are passionate about helping secure a No vote in September's referendum.
Could be a No vote in the bag, eh?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"...how the audience had been selected, by a polling organisation (forget who), to "balance yes and no and add in some undecided voters"
Comres, I think. Sorry, I meant precisely how. Picking up punters in the street? You and five mates? The tone of the audience seemed much different from the STV debate and looked like it had been prepped in a Question Time way, where the producers find willing questioners and either supply questions or rephrase their own questions to make them better on the telly.
Anyway, good knockabout stuff. My favourite bit was Salmond's "name three job creating powers that would be devolved to Scotland" question. There's no answer to it. There aren't three job creating powers to be devolved. If he'd just stood back and let Darling flounder and not answer he could have done better than constantly pushing and hectoring and not letting him not answer.
Posted 10 years ago # -
A Yes vote is a mandate on the White Paper after all.
Can you flesh this out at all? It's unclear to me how the referendum relates to a discussion document at all, let alone how it might provide a mandate for anything other than negotiations. Where for instance would I seek redress if the White Paper's contents were not implemented post-Yes?
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's what Alex Salmond has been saying at FMQs for weeks now. Last week it was
"I say to Ruth Davidson that, on September 18, if people in Scotland vote for what is in the white paper and the proposals to keep the pound, that is exactly what will happen" (my emphasis)
and what he said last night - a Yes vote would be a mandate, an expression of the sovereign will of the scottish people. The civil servants in the Scottish Government are already making their transition plans so I guess if it doesn't get implemented you can take it up with the SNP at the 2016 election.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Salmond much better tonight but you have to ponder if he has a wee Achilles heel if darling beat him the first time?"
After the first one I concluded that AS had been badly advised and (the bit I couldn't understand) that he had gone along with 'the advice'.
After yesterday I decided that in the first one he was either actually genuinely unwell or so overprepared/anxious he hadn't slept properly for a while.
Alternatively/additionally he has just prepared for AD being (naturally) restrained/diffident whereas (to carrying on with the not entirely appropriate boxing metaphors) AD put the pressure on from the first bell and AS had to (unexpectedly) go on the defensive.
This time AS adopted the tactic, was 'fitter' and definitely won on points.
Whether the wider debate and 'give us the facts' have moved on much is another matter.
Clearly AS's 'now we have. 3 PlanBs' soundbite/tactic should have been used first time round (and before). AB 'admitting' Scotland could use the Pound will be spun as new/important but doesn't really deserve it. His context was 'of course it can be, but it's not in Scotland - or rUK's interest'. The detail of that argument should have been gone into long before the debate(s) but hasn't really been beyond jibes about being like Panama.
The line of argument about 'the price of oil being volatile so you couldn't balance the books on an annual basis because no-one would lend Scotland any money as it (would have) defaulted on its (part of UK) debt' sounded desperate (as well as weak).
Whether or not the Bank of England is an "asset" or not which 'must' be shared seems far from settled. Likewise 'sharing' or 'defaulting' are (perhaps) genuinely still unanswered.
More significant (perhaps) is the 'new territory' that AS wants a 'mandate from the people of Scotland' to negotiate (aka demand) a currency union and AD's quite reasonable response that (IF Yes) 'that may be the settled will of the people of Scotland, but that won't be the view of the rest of the UK'. That of course remains to be seen, but he could be right.
So an independent Scotland WOULD use the Pound - under what rules and for how long remains unknown!
The discussion around 'oil' basically continues to be a mess. Salmond's line about 'why is AD saying that Scotland is the only country with oil reserves where that is a liability' is a valid point.
What no-one seems willing to say is 'doesn't matter about the precise number of barrels left, or how fast it's extracted, or the price - after independence Scotland would get ALL the tax revenue'. Or wouldn't it???
One area that hasn't been getting mentioned (on the TV/radio I have heard since last night) is defense/Trident.
The possibility that (the people of) rUK might not accept Trident/Nuclear Weapons was raised and is hard to deny! AD went on about the 'loss of jobs on the Clyde' and AS countered with 'HQ of Scottish defence forces'. Neither were particularly convincing.
AS's condemnation of "weapons of mass destruction" was passionate and the argument that 'wasting money on an expensive US system - rather than on actual jobs in Scotland' might have resonated with some people.
AD's most uncomfortable moment was when he was saying that he would repeal the bedroom tax. 'I'm here as a Labour politician', AS's response was 'you're here as a representative of Better Together - in bed with the Tories'.
Meanwhile, it's not about AS (or AD) or the SNP etc...
Posted 10 years ago # -
"A Yes vote is a mandate on the White Paper after all."
But it's not - though Salmond (and the SNP) might wish to believe it (and perhaps even do).
It's never been clear if the "White Paper" is really a Scottish Government document or an SNP one (yes the SG is currently SNP - hence the 'useful'(?) ambiguity).
It's certainly not a Yes campaign document.
I will put a cross (or is it a tick??) on a ballot paper with a specific question.
IF the majority of people who vote, vote Yes, I expect there to be negotiations as (outlined/detailed?) in the "Edinburgh Agreement" (haven't read it).
I expect there to be a group of people 'representing' Scotland.
Last night AS invited AD to be one of them!
The WP will be a useful blueprint for starting the negotiations.
AS/SNP would not be in any position to insist on 'all or nothing'.
I assume there is stuff in the WP that is no longer 'correct'/doable - never mind acceptable to the wider 'Yes movement' (beyond the SNP) who WILL have won the campaign (if Yes) by a tremendous amount of non-party effort.
AS/SNP will need to recognise this publicly early on - before negotiations with the UKGov commence.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
“What was remarkable about this debate was how little time was spent on the issues we know are likely to switch voters’ minds and that is what are the prospects for Scotland’s economy, either independence or in the union.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
I was wondering throughout how Salmond knew so perfectly what the "sovereign will of the Scottish people" would be in the event of a Yes vote!
The discussion around 'oil' basically continues to be a mess. Salmond's line about 'why is AD saying that Scotland is the only country with oil reserves where that is a liability' is a valid point.
I can think of quite a few countries where oil is a liability. Iraq, Kuwait, Nigeria, Libya. It has been a liability for Afghanistan even though they don't actually have any. If he meant Western countries he should have said so otherwise he just looks kind of ignorant.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Working from home today - was listening to Radio 5 phone in show about IndyRef.
Astonishing amount of misinformation/uninformed comment made as fact - particularly from some English callers who seemed to think if we vote Yes we are voting for Devo Max and will 'still be part of the UK'.
I didnt watch the first debate, last night pretty much conformed to type. I am no Salmond fan, but Darling blew it big time and walked into pretty much every trap.
Salmond was weak on the jobs post Trident, but apart from that was a clear winner.
Regardless of the outcome, this is going to be a close call - and if anyone thinks that a close No vote will make Scotland a happy united place is deluded.
My wife asked me last night what 'more' Westminster would devolve to us in the event of a close No vote - my guess is absolutely nothing (or close to it).
Why would they? Scotland will continue to be barren political ground for the Tories with half the country in a permanent state of angst that the last chance is gone and the other half patting themselves on the back that nothing has changed.
Posted 10 years ago # -
If the SNP think it's a mandate then, given they'll still be in Government, it's a mandate. I suspect the line about a mandate is as much for internal Yes consumption. We won it.
Whatever the truth of how it was won, I can easily see the SNP telling the Yes movement that they can stand down and let the real politicians take over. What would they do about it?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"I can think of quite a few countries where oil is a liability."
Sadly that is all too true.
For 'the future of the planet' it would be better if most of the oil stayed where it is.
But that's not about to happen - that's not the way 'the world'/'the economy' works.
There are plenty of Yessers who want something different, but...
Another of AD's mis-steps was to claim that the current investment in the Norhh Sea (that AS was proclaiming) was due to 'UK subsidies'.
So the Gov taxes oil revenues and then offers tax breaks to facilitate more tax take - and that's a subsidy for Scotland??
Clearly it's a 'subsidy' for the oil companies.
Though, obviously such multinationals wouldn't like to think they are subsidised...
Posted 10 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
