Salmond V. Darling

As someone who has been largely undecided thus far; I am, after tonight, firmly in the YES camp.

However, I am finding the analysis of the debate rather one sided in favour of Darling. They keep highlighting that Salmond didn't outline "plan b" for the post-independent currency; yet while he didn't go into specifics he did actually point out where the alternatives to a Currency Union could be found whilst maintaining that he is championing the Currency Union as the best option for both Scotland & the rest of the UK.

Meanwhile, Darling failed to answer whether he agreed with David Cameron that Scotland COULD make a success of independence (albeit that he seemed to be saying yes without actually using the word itself) & completely failed to name any new powers (when asked to name just 2) Scotland would get in the event of a us remaining part of the UK & yet not one analyst seems to have picked up on this.

Salmond is also being slated for going on about driving on the right & increased alien attacks...Darling asking him if he couldn't recognise a joke...yet no one is pointing out that Salmond was using this to get to a valid point; quoting the No campaign's web site comments regarding whether Scotland would be in the EU & their failure to remove their errors when these were pointed out.

For me the Yes campaign has been very much like Obama's original victory slogan "We Can!" it is a positive message about the strengths of Scotland as a nation. The No campaign is very negative; very much a "Oh no we can't; not on our own; we're too wee, our natural resources are running out; we need the support of our big cousin."

So unless there is a major breakthrough by the No campaign, I'll be voting YES

Salmond couldn't answer any questions properly.

Politicians are wankers.

Neither would Darling, Lexi. They were both as bad as each other in that regard.

It worries me that people are still undecided at this stage of the debate, and are willing to pin their vote on how someone comes across for two hours. It's almost as if they're waiting for some golden bullet that one side is going to use to hole the other campaign terminally. Ain't going to happen.

Politicians give political answers; however as I pointed out, Salmond DID answer the question indirectly by pointing towards the document that lays out the options. I did a search & found a number of documents from both sides of the debate outlining the same four alternatives to currency union; this proves that the No campaign is using the alleged lack of a plan b (which in fact does exist) as a scaremongering tactic.

The preferred choice of the Fiscal Committee which produced the document is a formal monetary union. (see www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00420804.pdf for full details)
The other 4 options are (in no particular order):
An informal monetary union (this came out in the debate, anyone can technically use any currency)
Join the Euro
Set up a new Scottish currency
A currency board (local notes & coins anchored to another currency eg sterling; euro; dollar etc)

I also found a statement released by the Fiscal Committee detailing that it had recommended its report to both Edinburgh & Westminster; urging the latter to enter into discussions based on the report so that the people of Scotland could have all the information to make an informed choice; at the time that the statement was released (Feb or March this year if I remember correctly) Westminster had NOT RESPONDED.

So you have to ask why had Westminster not responded. I suggest because they are so determined to retain the UK in its current format that they are deliberately avoiding the issue.

Now; IMO Salmond SHOULD have highlighted this too.

But what has annoyed me is the fact that the so called analysts of the debate are painting it as though Salmond didn't answer at all; he did by indicating where the answer could be found if anyone was interested enough to look for it. He was thus dismissing it as a non-issue & stuck to his guns on what he & the Fiscal Committee believe to be the preferred option (formal currency union) & highlighted that it is a non-issue by quoting Darling on it & calling him out on his original desire to join the Euro; both of which contradict what Darling was trying to claim last night.

Mozam, people remain undecided because they are of the opinion that they don't have enough information to make an informed choice. Both sides of the argument are guilty of not being clear enough but the information is there if folk care to look for it (as I have discovered). People are also undecided because they are concerned about the risks. It is risky either way. It is like leaving home for the first time to set out on your own; or like deciding to start a family; my wife and I had been married for nearly 5 years before we decided to have kids; we had put it off on the basis that we couldn't afford it; we eventually decided we would NEVER be able to afford it, we just had to make it work. It was a risk but 3 kids later it was a risk worth taking.

What is the risk of staying in the UK I hear all the "No voters" ask....last night, Darling claimed that Scotland would get new powers for the Scottish Parliament; when asked to name 2 he couldn't even name 1.

In the end it comes down to this; do the people of Scotland want self determination or are they happy to keep bitterly complaining that we never get the government the nation votes for?

Bertie Bassett wrote:
Mozam, people remain undecided because they are of the opinion that they don't have enough information to make an informed choice. Both sides of the argument are guilty of not being clear enough but the information is there if folk care to look for it (as I have discovered). People are also undecided because they are concerned about the risks. It is risky either way. It is like leaving home for the first time to set out on your own; or like deciding to start a family; my wife and I had been married for nearly 5 years before we decided to have kids; we had put it off on the basis that we couldn't afford it; we eventually decided we would NEVER be able to afford it, we just had to make it work. It was a risk but 3 kids later it was a risk worth taking.

What is the risk of staying in the UK I hear all the "No voters" ask....last night, Darling claimed that Scotland would get new powers for the Scottish Parliament; when asked to name 2 he couldn't even name 1.

In the end it comes down to this; do the people of Scotland want self determination or are they happy to keep bitterly complaining that we never get the government the nation votes for?

I genuinely don't know what more information people can want, Bertie. As you say it's all out there, and has been for a while. Peoples interpretation can be different, which is fine - the whole "give me more answers, give me more facts" line just doesn't sit with me. There will be people who will remain "undecided" until the night before, and will probably swing their vote depending on the front cover of whatever paper they read. That scares me.

For a lot of people, I'm guessing it's not a case of wanting more answers - it's a case of not wanting to make the decision in the first place.

You could well be right there Mozam; & while I am now 100% convinced to vote Yes, I fear the No campaign will win the day for the very reason you end your last post with.

The Braveheart speech by Mel Gibson's "Wallace" needs to be adapted & proclaimed loudly.

"Just one chance!!" come on Scotland; let's take it!!

From a lot of reaction I've read, it seems to be the case that the No supporters thought Darling performed better while Yes supporters thought Salmond did.

I'm a staunch No voter because it suits my career prospects a lot more, if we stay as part of the UK. Funnily enough, I thought Darling came across very passionate and Salmond a bit aloof and childish.

I think the lead is too great for Yes to have any chance at this point and by the same measure, I think it should be more than a simple majority of the voters if we were to make such a drastic change.

Yes, AS did say whereabouts in the  White Paper the currency options can be found. The White Paper does not state any such options. All it says is that the Fiscal Commission  examined other options namely Scotland's own currency and the Euro. No where does it say that these options are feasible. Anyway AS rejected both possibilities during the debate  which leaves him with no Plan B. Why can't he come clean and just say so.
My main concern is the influx of English students to Scottish Universities. Trying to prevent it by charging such students takes up seven paragraphs of waffle in the Paper. Believe it and you will believe anything including Livingston winning the Championship.

EdinburghLivi wrote:From a lot of reaction I've read, it seems to be the case that the No supporters thought Darling performed better while Yes supporters thought Salmond did.

I'm a staunch No voter because it suits my career prospects a lot more, if we stay as part of the UK. Funnily enough, I thought Darling came across very passionate and Salmond a bit aloof and childish.

I think the lead is too great for Yes to have any chance at this point and by the same measure, I think it should be more than a simple majority of the voters if we were to make such a drastic change.

I've said it elsewhere EL, I'm a Yes voter and I thought Darling was better than Salmond - what I mean by that is, he wasn't nearly as (for want of a better phrase), subserviant as I'd anticipated him to be. He was still very patronising with his counters of "you'll not get back in, so hell mend you" attitude, but in that regard I expected nothing less; where he surprised me was his passion. I can only assume that Salmond is playing a long game, what with it being the first of three debates - remember how everyone "agreed with Nick" after the first debate preceeding the last UK election, and by the third one he was the forgotten man?

Hope you don't mind me asking, and tell me to eff off if you like - what is it you're planning to do careerwise, that you feel an Independent Scotland wouldn't be able to offer you opportunities in? Is it something really obvious, like selling Union Jack flags?   

Haha maybe as a business plan, should the lead become unassailable. I'm planning to further myself in investment in the next few years and I believe there's more chance of that happening if the risk of my company and others potentially leaving their Scottish bases is reduced.

As an aside, I've recently become concerned about what the potential ramifications could be, in the event of a No vote. I think there will be a lot of bitter nationalists, even more fed up over 'Westminster rule' than they were. Wouldn't surprise me if the further devolved powers are transferred quickly.

Anglo_lion wrote:Yes, AS did say whereabouts in the  White Paper the currency options can be found. The White Paper does not state any such options. All it says is that the Fiscal Commission  examined other options namely Scotland's own currency and the Euro. No where does it say that these options are feasible. Anyway AS rejected both possibilities during the debate  which leaves him with no Plan B. Why can't he come clean and just say so.
My main concern is the influx of English students to Scottish Universities. Trying to prevent it by charging such students takes up seven paragraphs of waffle in the Paper. Believe it and you will believe anything including Livingston winning the Championship.

He didn't say it was in the white paper; he said the Fiscal Committee had produced a report...I think I included the link to that report in an earlier post...it lists 4 alternatives to Formal Currency Union but recommends FCU.

Why should you be concerned about an influx of English students? Do they frighten you?   

Ok I admit I was wrong (not a phrase in AS's book). He was referring to the link you supplied rather than the White Paper, not that there is much difference. Since very few people have read, never mind know of the existence of such a document wouldn't it have been simpler just to state all the options rather than waste time waffling around the subject. The paper suggests discussion should be had with the UK government about the best way forward. The UK government has ruled out Sterling. The SNP have ruled out the Euro and Scotland's own currency. What is there left to discuss? Answer - the virtual Plan B.

My concern about the influx of English university students is two fold. One, it will result in a reduction in the number of Scottish students able to get to University. Two, I already object to my tax being used to pay for EU students to come and study free in Scotland. More of my tax will be used for that purpose if independence comes.

Anglo_lion wrote:Ok I admit I was wrong (not a phrase in AS's book). He was referring  to the link you supplied rather than the White Paper, not that there is much difference. Since very few people have read, never mind know of the existence of such a document wouldn't it have been simpler  just to state all the options rather than waste time waffling around the subject. The paper suggests discussion should be had with the UK government  about the best way forward. The UK government has ruled out Sterling. The SNP have ruled out the Euro and Scotland's own currency. What is there left to discuss? Answer  - the virtual Plan B.

My concern about the influx of English university students is two fold. One, it will result in a reduction in the number of Scottish students able to get to University. Two, I already object to my tax being used to pay for EU students to come and study free in Scotland. More of my tax  will be used for that purpose if independence comes.

But the UK government have NOT ruled out formal currency union; that is the point Salmond was making; everyone agrees its the best option; cabinet ministers have said that if Scotland gets independence then "of course there will be currency union" (can't remember who but Salmond mentioned them when he quoted them the other night). Thus...as I have been saying from the outset...the claim that currency union can't or won't happen is scaremongering. The whole no campaign is based on scaremongering hence "project fear" which Darling denied was a name used by his cronies...but again Salmond had the quote to hand.

Stop buying into the "Noes tinted spectacles" that the media are using to hand Darling a victory he neither merits nor obtained.

I grant you the education aspect is a bit suspect but I believe English students don't actually get free education in Scotland, it just happens to be cheaper than down south. Does this worry me? Not particularly.

No point Salmond getting into a currency debate, that's what Darling wants. He'd just love Salmond on the defensive and getting bogged down on a negative vote No scare tactic.

I see Boris is putting his hat in the ring as an MP again, that there is a good reason to vote YES, he could be the next Tory leader, and Prime Minister, that's a scary thought.

Salmond would do well to reverse the currency question to Darling, in the same way he did with regards "could Scotland succeed as an independent country" - by asking Darling, "could a currency union be agreed in negotiation". There is only one answer to that, and it's an answer that Darling will never give.

Just read your post Bertie, should have spotted it first!

For those who may be interested...Nicola Sturgeon is speaking at West Lothian College (Pavilion B) on Wednesday 13th from 7pm & there will be opportunity to ask questions.

Jim Sillars will be among the speakers at Deans High School on August 27th also from 7pm.

Excellent evening last night at WLC; Nicola Sturgeon proved to be good to listen to, with a very good sense of humour. She dealt with all questions effectively & provided clear answers on the currency options & why the "party line" is to promote the formal currency union. See my earlier posts for the link to the fiscal commission report which provides details.

If I had any lingering doubts before last night they were completely swept away.

mozam76 wrote:Neither would Darling, Lexi. They were both as bad as each other in that regard.

It worries me that people are still undecided at this stage of the debate, and are willing to pin their vote on how someone comes across for two hours. It's almost as if they're waiting for some golden bullet that one side is going to use to hole the other campaign terminally. Ain't going to happen.

Two words makes me decide which way Im going.

Have been that way for years, not for changing now.

No Thanks

EdinburghLivi wrote:From a lot of reaction I've read, it seems to be the case that the No supporters thought Darling performed better while Yes supporters thought Salmond did.

I'm a staunch No voter because it suits my career prospects a lot more, if we stay as part of the UK. Funnily enough, I thought Darling came across very passionate and Salmond a bit aloof and childish.

I think the lead is too great for Yes to have any chance at this point and by the same measure, I think it should be more than a simple majority of the voters if we were to make such a drastic change.

Very well said !!

I agree totally with your point about a simple majority re drastic change too.

Mr Salmold has tried to manipulate this referendum in so many ways re age levels of voters , not allowing Scots outside of Scotland to vote, simple majority etc.

Lets hope No Thanks is the flavour of the day on 18th September.

Good piece from a guys dad in a football forum I go on.

http://blog.russellwardrop.com/mibby-aye-mibby-naw/

Darling Smoked Salmond for sure, though I highlighted his aggression both because it was successful- it was what won it for him- but also because it was so incessant: you will struggle to find a performance like that in a similar forum and Salmond would have been slaughtered had he behaved like Darling. It was also obvious Salmond had bested Darling on Currency Union; Darling struggled badly over “logical and reasonable” until reverting to his preferred tactic of personalising and raising his voice. (I have looked at this many times: if you have a different view let me have it. We can even look at it together and have a chat).

Why did no mainstream media outlet call Darling’s aggression and why was there no commentary on his discomfort on Currency Union? Not only that, the currency conflagration was portrayed as a great Darling victory. That was not the case unless all you are assessing is audience reaction towards the end, but this was not Opportunity Knocks

This bit highlights what Bertie said about the media not picking up on Darling's performance.

I think if Darling had been his usual passive self, Salmond might have won the debate. I don't agree necessarily that voters wouldn't have responded well to aggression from Salmond as well. I imagine they'd prefer it to a bunch of rubbish sound bites.

Exactly LF.

I have said from the outset that the currency argument from the "No-es" is a bunch of nonsense, how many nations share the Euro? How many nations that used to have the £ retained it on first getting independence before eventually devising their own currency? Answer to both is loads.

People need to get past "What currency will we have?" & look at the bigger picture, a nation believing in itself, standing up for itself & generating its own wealth & maintaining its own economy.

As things stand just now the UK is the 18th richest "country" in the world...pretty good going I agree.
However, IF Scotland was measured on its own we would be 14th! That means we contribute most of the UK's wealth...so what does the rest of the UK bring to the table? That's why they don't want us to go; they wouldn't be as well off without us!

Can we do it? Let's hear it for the Obama rallying call for his first election as US president:
"Yes we can!"

I thought that nothing new come from the debate, but the pre-debate betting had Alex Salmond kicking Darlings butt. The first minister, IMO come off second best. As an undecided I took the time and read all 650 pages of the White Paper. TBH, there are duplicate, and triplicate and other multiples of repetition throughout the White Paper that distills it down to about 300 or odd pages of information. For me the problem is that it is a 'it will be all right on the night',proposal. As for the pound, an independent Scotland can call their currency the pound, but a fiscal union is totally different. If such a union is a no brainer and best for an iScotland and rUK why does the White Paper state "that a fiscal union will stay in place until the time is right for Scotland gets its own currency"? Why should rUK sign up for something that is good, but an iScotland will remove it when it suits them.

Unfortunately I concluded that the promises within the White Paper were just that, we are being asked to make the biggest political decision ever on 18th September 2014, but need to wait until 26th March 2016 (until after negotiations) to see what we get . Too much a risk for me.

So you're falling for the fear tactics of the No campaign.

As Nelson Mandela once said you should vote based on your hopes not on your fears.

The white paper is a white paper; it is not set in stone.

The Fiscal Commission recommends formal currency union ahead of 4 other options; the "No-es" say that can't happen; which is nonsense because it clearly can. The pound is an international trading currency & can be used by anyone. A formal currency union means no need to alter the way business conducts cross border payments saving businesses on both sides of the border millions in exchange rate fees.

As I mentioned earlier, other countries now independent from the UK (Australia for example) used the pound initially & eventually set up the Aussie dollar. That option remains open but if the formal currency union works as well as expected then there may be no need to change.

Negotiations for Scotland's departure from the UK will take that long but if we vote no what will we get? More government from Westminster most likely by a party that the nation didn't vote for; more austerity measures; cuts in the Police Force (its happening down south now, while our own Police Force is flourishing); more cuts in our allocation of the UK purse despite our economy being the best in the UK. Trident (or its replacement) still on the Clyde. All of these things are bigger risks than waiting a year & a half to get the best deal possible. When will we get them? Pretty much immediately.

IMO Salmond kicked Darling's butt; if you actually LISTEN to what he says rather than whinging about what he doesn't say he answers every question, including plan b (he at the very least refers you to the Fiscal Commission report which has plans b,c,d & e) meanwhile Darling flusters & flounders when asked if Scotland COULD be a successful independent country, when asked if he agrees with David Cameron on that matter & when asked to name just 2 alleged additional powers coming Scotland's way in the event of a "No" vote. And Darling drowned in embarrassment when reminded that the banks collapsed on HIS watch.

The ONLY thing Darling outgunned Salmond on was aggression. That's because he had to shout louder to make everyone think he was winning. However, the person who wins an argument is usually the one who remains calm & doesn't need to shout because the facts back him up.