Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Darling versus Salmond – the 2nd leg: Live discussion with

245

Comments

  • alexalex Posts: 244
    Has he reverted to the line that Scotland would lose responsibility for the whole of their debt, rather than just their share supposedly held by the Bank of England? (which is nonsense of course, but too technical to explain - the debt held by the Bank of England is from Quantitative Easing and is effectively "temporary money printing" - if it is ever paid back/called in then it will be 'destroyed' thereby shrinking the balance sheet). It therefore doesn't really have a monetary value in the real world and can't be transferred to a third party as an 'asset'.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    Salmond wins the debate in the room on currency but has he given the kind of clarity that will reassure waverers as they vote? Probably not.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Gadfly said:

    We will welch threat.

    Where's Malcom?

    Has anyone ever seen Malcolm and Alex in the same room?
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    HYUFD said:

    hucks67 Cameron of course is part Scot, Major fully English

    John Major was well liked throughout most of the country and Cameron is not trusted in some areas of the UK, even if he has Scots ancestors.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Salmond is being incredibly disingenuous with his answers.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    The moderator was wrong there. Alastair doesn't require a plan B, because the Union exists as it is.

    Darling repeatedly hammered Salmond with "What if you're wrong?" last time and plays the "I'm a loyal Scot who wants the best for it regardless of outcome" card the whole time. He made a rod for his own back there and does need a Plan B given it.
    Sorry, he is arguing for the status quo, so why does he need a plan B?
    Because he's positioned himself as someone with answers regardless of the outcome, and because he demanded a Plan B from Salmond not because he was leader of the No campaign but as a matter of personal integrity last time. He has to therefore reciprocate.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Salmond comes over as too clever by half
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191

    Gadfly said:

    We will welch threat.

    Where's Malcom?

    Has anyone ever seen Malcolm and Alex in the same room?
    Bloody hell! ;-)

  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Salmond is not even trying to argue with reality.

    I just don't think you can pull the wool over enough eyes this way.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758

    Salmond comes over as too clever by half

    Snakeoil saleman !
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626

    Salmond comes over as too clever by half

    Only in Britain would we see a clever politician as a bad thing ;-)

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,163
    Darling cheerleading for the Tories again.
  • JamesMJamesM Posts: 221
    Darling acknowledging NHS spending is going up under the coalition, that could be useful for them in 2015!
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Darling doing the NHS issue well
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    The moderator was wrong there. Alastair doesn't require a plan B, because the Union exists as it is.

    Darling repeatedly hammered Salmond with "What if you're wrong?" last time and plays the "I'm a loyal Scot who wants the best for it regardless of outcome" card the whole time. He made a rod for his own back there and does need a Plan B given it.
    Sorry, he is arguing for the status quo, so why does he need a plan B?
    Because he's positioned himself as someone with answers regardless of the outcome, and because he demanded a Plan B from Salmond not because he was leader of the No campaign but as a matter of personal integrity last time. He has to therefore reciprocate.
    Oh, I see a plan B in case of independence. I think his answer that they are all second best is reasonable enough. Given that he isn't campaigning for Yes.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    What kind of 'question' is this?!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Oh look an SNP plant in the debate.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191

    Salmond comes over as too clever by half

    Glad that I am not the only one who has noticed.

  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    edited August 2014
    Darling just got monstered by the audience.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    IOS said:

    Salmond is not even trying to argue with reality.

    I just don't think you can pull the wool over enough eyes this way.

    He only needs to pull it over enough Ayes...
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Given that Labour voters are the swing voters here - I don't think YES supporters attacking Labour is the best way to get to 50.1%
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    hucks67 said:

    Salmond comes over as too clever by half

    Snakeoil saleman !
    There's a reason stories of such conmen tricks get passed along for so long. They worked.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    hucks67 said:

    Socrates said:

    @hucks67

    I've come to the view that the Tories are busted as a brand. The sensible long term strategy for the Right is for UKIP and the Tories to merge, and thus straddle the working class-middle class divide. Unfortunately the Tories have been stupidly short-sighted in trying to smear their potential allies.

    I thought at one time you were a strong supporter of the Tories or came across to me that way.

    The problem with the Tories is that many of the current MP's don't represent most of the people around the country. They are seen as out of touch rich folk, who want a career in politics to further their business interests. You could argue the same about some Labour MP's.
    But not about UKIP MEPS growing rich on the EU gravy train?

    This ''don't represent most of the people around the country'' stuff is just bunkum on all sides.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Are the Scottish public more left wing than the current Labour party ?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970
    Hugh

    "Honestly, to see what I mean pop to Scotland. It feels like a country that's about to vote Yes, overwhelmingly"

    Depends where you are. I didn't get that sense from the people I was with in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. They happened to be mainly NO but I didn't get a sense of a great march towards YES.
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    edited August 2014
    Alastair Darling is a modern day Great for what he's done for us after the bankers wrecked our economy, and he should have a Day or Airport named after him or something.

    But he's losing this debate.

    Edit: though given the state of the Yes / No polls, he might well win the immediate "win/lose" poll. People always favour their man.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    hucks67 said:

    Are the Scottish public more left wing than the current Labour party ?

    Glasgow is.
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    The moderator was wrong there. Alastair doesn't require a plan B, because the Union exists as it is.

    Darling repeatedly hammered Salmond with "What if you're wrong?" last time and plays the "I'm a loyal Scot who wants the best for it regardless of outcome" card the whole time. He made a rod for his own back there and does need a Plan B given it.
    Sorry, he is arguing for the status quo, so why does he need a plan B?
    Because he's positioned himself as someone with answers regardless of the outcome, and because he demanded a Plan B from Salmond not because he was leader of the No campaign but as a matter of personal integrity last time. He has to therefore reciprocate.
    No he doesn't. Salmond is the one trying to sell the dream.

  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    Was that deliberate, bracketing Darling with the Post Office sell-off? Clever if so...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    hucks67 said:

    Socrates said:

    @hucks67

    I've come to the view that the Tories are busted as a brand. The sensible long term strategy for the Right is for UKIP and the Tories to merge, and thus straddle the working class-middle class divide. Unfortunately the Tories have been stupidly short-sighted in trying to smear their potential allies.

    I thought at one time you were a strong supporter of the Tories or came across to me that way.

    The problem with the Tories is that many of the current MP's don't represent most of the people around the country. They are seen as out of touch rich folk, who want a career in politics to further their business interests. You could argue the same about some Labour MP's.
    But not about UKIP MEPS growing rich on the EU gravy train?

    This ''don't represent most of the people around the country'' stuff is just bunkum on all sides.
    Partly. I think it more a problem with the Tories in that they don't seem to represent their own activists, who seem to tack harder to the right than them, which leads to more problems.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    Salmond comes over as too clever by half

    Only in Britain would we see a clever politician as a bad thing ;-)

    Being clever isn't a problem. Being *too* clever can be, or at least, being what it infers is: fond of excessive complexity and theorising, both of which have a tendency of coming a cropper on contact with the real world.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Salmond can't keep talking over Darling. Will not win over a neutral.
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    hucks67 said:

    Are the Scottish public more left wing than the current Labour party ?

    lol
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    I would not buy a second hand country from Salmond. Disingenuous to a fault on currency.

    If you vote yes up there then entirely fair enough, but may God help you. If people cannot see what a gigantic whopper this currency union spin is from Salmond I would truly despair were I Scottish.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    hucks67 said:

    I do blame the Tories for Scots wanting independence. It has got worse over the years. Whereas John Major may have been able to debate with Salmond, there was no chance Cameron could have done so.

    More rubbish. Who created devolution? Labour. When did Salmond and the independence movement thrive? Under labour. But oh dear me - independence is all the Tories fault.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Liverpool defence parting like the red sea again. Good to see the lessons of last season learned.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Edin_Rokz said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    The moderator was wrong there. Alastair doesn't require a plan B, because the Union exists as it is.

    Darling repeatedly hammered Salmond with "What if you're wrong?" last time and plays the "I'm a loyal Scot who wants the best for it regardless of outcome" card the whole time. He made a rod for his own back there and does need a Plan B given it.
    Sorry, he is arguing for the status quo, so why does he need a plan B?
    Because he's positioned himself as someone with answers regardless of the outcome, and because he demanded a Plan B from Salmond not because he was leader of the No campaign but as a matter of personal integrity last time. He has to therefore reciprocate.
    No he doesn't. Salmond is the one trying to sell the dream.

    Then he shouldn't have implied that Salmond needed a Plan B to show he wasn't intellectually dishonest, arrogant and incapable of imagining he might be wrong. If you do that, don't be surprised when people ask you what your plan is if you're wrong.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited August 2014
    I don't even understand this last question. "If we are better together, why aren't we better together already?"

    ?

    I seem to be running a bit behind, is that really what he said?
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Hugh said:

    hucks67 said:

    Are the Scottish public more left wing than the current Labour party ?

    lol
    It was a sensible question I thought. If you think about it, if Scotland votes NO, they might be a bit disappointed with a Labour government, because Ed Miliband probably won't be as red as he is painted.
  • hucks67 said:

    I do blame the Tories for Scots wanting independence. It has got worse over the years. Whereas John Major may have been able to debate with Salmond, there was no chance Cameron could have done so.

    More rubbish. Who created devolution? Labour. When did Salmond and the independence movement thrive? Under labour. But oh dear me - independence is all the Tories fault.
    [Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Poll Tax".]
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030

    hucks67 said:

    I do blame the Tories for Scots wanting independence. It has got worse over the years. Whereas John Major may have been able to debate with Salmond, there was no chance Cameron could have done so.

    More rubbish. Who created devolution? Labour. When did Salmond and the independence movement thrive? Under labour. But oh dear me - independence is all the Tories fault.
    [Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Poll Tax".]
    You should go to the doctors... polltaxitis is a common side effect of Tebbit chip implantation. :')
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    kle4 said:

    I don't even understand this last question. "If we are better together, why aren't we better together already?"

    ?

    It's the same as asking a government why they haven't already done the stuff in their manifesto, right? If Darling says the UK can achieve loads together, why haven't they already achieved it. It's a silly question every time because the reason is basically "Because politics is never perfect", but whatever.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758

    hucks67 said:

    I do blame the Tories for Scots wanting independence. It has got worse over the years. Whereas John Major may have been able to debate with Salmond, there was no chance Cameron could have done so.

    More rubbish. Who created devolution? Labour. When did Salmond and the independence movement thrive? Under labour. But oh dear me - independence is all the Tories fault.
    That is a fair point, but Tories have been in favour of devolution for awhile now.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited August 2014
    @JamesM
    "....spending is going up under the coalition, that could be useful for them in 2015! "
    Not really, I doubt they will argue that it has been "cut". An argument like that becomes a war of statistics that people ignore. "Spending decisions are wrong", is simpler and has more traction.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    edited August 2014
    Darling allowing himself to be painted as the Westminster stooge here
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    hucks67 said:

    I do blame the Tories for Scots wanting independence. It has got worse over the years. Whereas John Major may have been able to debate with Salmond, there was no chance Cameron could have done so.

    More rubbish. Who created devolution? Labour. When did Salmond and the independence movement thrive? Under labour. But oh dear me - independence is all the Tories fault.
    [Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Poll Tax".]
    Sounds serious - have you seen a doctor about it?
  • Salmond playing the game very well. He only needs to hold the line to 18th September. He does not need to do anything but say what is necessary to win the vote.
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    Quincel said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    The moderator was wrong there. Alastair doesn't require a plan B, because the Union exists as it is.

    Darling repeatedly hammered Salmond with "What if you're wrong?" last time and plays the "I'm a loyal Scot who wants the best for it regardless of outcome" card the whole time. He made a rod for his own back there and does need a Plan B given it.
    Sorry, he is arguing for the status quo, so why does he need a plan B?
    Because he's positioned himself as someone with answers regardless of the outcome, and because he demanded a Plan B from Salmond not because he was leader of the No campaign but as a matter of personal integrity last time. He has to therefore reciprocate.
    No he doesn't. Salmond is the one trying to sell the dream.

    Then he shouldn't have implied that Salmond needed a Plan B to show he wasn't intellectually dishonest, arrogant and incapable of imagining he might be wrong. If you do that, don't be surprised when people ask you what your plan is if you're wrong.
    But Salmond is intellectually dishonest, arrogant and incapable of imagining he might be wrong.
  • RobD said:

    hucks67 said:

    I do blame the Tories for Scots wanting independence. It has got worse over the years. Whereas John Major may have been able to debate with Salmond, there was no chance Cameron could have done so.

    More rubbish. Who created devolution? Labour. When did Salmond and the independence movement thrive? Under labour. But oh dear me - independence is all the Tories fault.
    [Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Poll Tax".]
    You should go to the doctors... polltaxitis is a common side effect of Tebbit chip implantation. :')
    Vote NO, save Ed!
    Vote YES, maximise the chances of Tory survival!
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Salmond is blaming IDS.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited August 2014
    Salmond smooth and reasonable, and having the best soundbites (the 'ah!' at the 'revelation' of Darling saying of course Scotland could use the point, will play very well despite not being a change in position), crowd with him more as well it seems. The expected narrative was he could not do as badly as last time and would probably win, and even if that expectation is impacting my and others' interpretations, he's making it pretty easy.

    Even if what he is saying is disingenuous or wrong, that hardly matters if it works.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Edin_Rokz said:

    Quincel said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    The moderator was wrong there. Alastair doesn't require a plan B, because the Union exists as it is.

    Darling repeatedly hammered Salmond with "What if you're wrong?" last time and plays the "I'm a loyal Scot who wants the best for it regardless of outcome" card the whole time. He made a rod for his own back there and does need a Plan B given it.
    Sorry, he is arguing for the status quo, so why does he need a plan B?
    Because he's positioned himself as someone with answers regardless of the outcome, and because he demanded a Plan B from Salmond not because he was leader of the No campaign but as a matter of personal integrity last time. He has to therefore reciprocate.
    No he doesn't. Salmond is the one trying to sell the dream.

    Then he shouldn't have implied that Salmond needed a Plan B to show he wasn't intellectually dishonest, arrogant and incapable of imagining he might be wrong. If you do that, don't be surprised when people ask you what your plan is if you're wrong.
    But Salmond is intellectually dishonest, arrogant and incapable of imagining he might be wrong.
    You're suggesting he doesn't need a Plan B because politics is fair? I don't mean he needs one as a logical argument, I mean he needs one politically. At least for this debate. Long-term it doesn't really matter.
  • alexalex Posts: 244
    Today's pensions are not unaffordable. What is (apparently) unaffordable is the pensions of tomorrow, due to the ageing population. That is why the Government are increasing the retirement age. Since Scotland are ageing faster than the rest of the UK it therefore follows that the future pensions are more unaffordable for them than the rest. That they currently die younger and are currently less expensive is irrelevant, because 'currently' is what we can afford. Which is why the SNP posturing on this is nonsense - the common approach to the future problem in the Union benefits them.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,890
    Oh dear. Wee Feck's last point was a 'you're a Tory' rant.

    Ooops
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Alex Salmond trying to turn into a Scots version of de Kirchner with threats of default?
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Painting darling as a westminster stooge is a bad tactic. Salmond needs working class Labour supporters.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    You do NOT start cross examination with an open question which gives your opponent control of the stage. That is really amateurish frankly.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Zzzzzz Darling sounding like a stuck record. To be fair to Salmond, he's answered the currency question much better than last time.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Maybe Darling should just go for broke and say 'Look, Labour are going to win in 2015, you don't have to worry about a Tory government'. I know Scottish Labour are hardly united on this issue and the prospect of a government of Labour not appealing to many, but the fact of a current Tory government seems to colour every argument on both sides, either emboldening Yes to bring up matters which are not relevant, or No to tie itself in knots trying to explain away agreement with the hated Tories on anything.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Big mistake for Darling to go back to the currency question, he lost that one badly just minutes ago and he loses it again.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Speedy said:

    Big mistake for Darling to go back to the currency question, he lost that one badly just minutes ago and he loses it again.

    Agreed. Very poor.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    I think SNP plans to use the Euro, if they don't get the pound currency union. But there may be a transitional period of Scotland using the pound independently.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Salmond seems to be deliberately laughing off anything Darling says more than last time. Portray anything he says as ridiculous and/or Tory, both of which will anger Darling and make him get flustered? Good tactics it seems.
  • alexalex Posts: 244
    Why did the No campaign call itself "Better together" rather than "Stronger together" btw?
  • hucks67 said:

    I do blame the Tories for Scots wanting independence. It has got worse over the years. Whereas John Major may have been able to debate with Salmond, there was no chance Cameron could have done so.

    More rubbish. Who created devolution? Labour. When did Salmond and the independence movement thrive? Under labour. But oh dear me - independence is all the Tories fault.
    [Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Poll Tax".]
    Sounds serious - have you seen a doctor about it?
    Tory MPs in Scotland 1987 = 10
    Tory MPs in Scotland 1992 = 11
    Tory MPs in Scotland 1997 = 0!!!
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    alex said:

    Why did the No campaign call itself "Better together" rather than "Stronger together" btw?

    Sponsorship from BT.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Quincel said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    The moderator was wrong there. Alastair doesn't require a plan B, because the Union exists as it is.

    Darling repeatedly hammered Salmond with "What if you're wrong?" last time and plays the "I'm a loyal Scot who wants the best for it regardless of outcome" card the whole time. He made a rod for his own back there and does need a Plan B given it.
    Sorry, he is arguing for the status quo, so why does he need a plan B?
    Because he's positioned himself as someone with answers regardless of the outcome, and because he demanded a Plan B from Salmond not because he was leader of the No campaign but as a matter of personal integrity last time. He has to therefore reciprocate.
    No he doesn't. Salmond is the one trying to sell the dream.

    Then he shouldn't have implied that Salmond needed a Plan B to show he wasn't intellectually dishonest, arrogant and incapable of imagining he might be wrong. If you do that, don't be surprised when people ask you what your plan is if you're wrong.
    The difference is that Salmond needs a Plan B because his Plan A rests on the decision of people over whom he has no control; Darling's Plan A follows directly from the referendum result. The equivalent would be to ask Salmond what he'd do if he loses the referendum, not if he's blocked on a currency union.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    Salmond missed an open goal there: Darling boasted that with incentives production can go up
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    kle4 said:

    Salmond seems to be deliberately laughing off anything Darling says more than last time. Portray anything he says as ridiculous and/or Tory, both of which will anger Darling and make him get flustered? Good tactics it seems.

    Agreed. Could have gone either way, but seems to be going for them.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Losing faith inthe Chair. Shouty shouty shouty
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    Getting way too shouty now
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Don't see why Salmond is arguing over the oil. Scotland will only get 8% of it....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Everyone told Darling to hammer Salmond on the currency issue following his success last time. I guess he can hardly be blamed for having prepared his entire routine around it
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Salmond is in trouble here. His tactic of trying to shout over Alistair is looking bad.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Salmond does not answer very many questions.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Darling has found a new line of attack on oil revenues.
    This debate is reversing the arguments.
    Currency is now Salmond's biggest success, oil is Darling's.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Rexel56 said:

    Salmond missed an open goal there: Darling boasted that with incentives production can go up

    The point is not the level of production, it is the tax revenues that come from it.

  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Salmond using coalition failures as a reason for Scotland to have independence.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Darling won that on oil revenues.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    This is turning out to be a terrible night - Liverpool getting absolutely hammered, Salmond as expected returning to form. First day back at work after a week off tomorrow and all, with a lot of messes to get back to. This week is not starting off well.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    It's hard to hear who is saying what. I like this format but the chairing could be better.
  • At least TSE can look forward to improving the Pool goal difference on Sunday.... maybe.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Pit ra heed onnim "Badger"!
    Oops, got carried away there
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,874
    Alex Salmond Polls show most Scots want welfare cuts
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,376
    So based on the debate so far do we think we're actually going to get rid of Scotland once and for all?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    Carola said:

    It's hard to hear who is saying what. I like this format but the chairing could be better.

    I like the idea of turning off their mic if they talk when they aren't supposed to!
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Salmond need to not take on Labour. He will lose.
  • If I am undecided I just hear two blokes shouting at each other.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Salmond's cross-examination is much better than Darling's. New(er) material, more clarity.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    This is nothing more than a shore up the vote from a losing side.

    Salmond doesn't want swing voters.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626

    Darling won that on oil revenues.

    Oh no he didn't

    Too much pantomime shouty shouty. No winner
  • BTW I've been watching Airplane on Film4 since 8.30 :)
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    HYUFD said:

    Alex Salmond Polls show most Scots want welfare cuts

    Polls always show people want welfare cuts, but oppose the specific cuts quite often. The bedroom tax is a good example.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Salmond and his supporters will claim that they won this debate. They will be wrong.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited August 2014
    This debate has completely reversed the main arguments of YES and NO.
    The SNP is attacking Labour for New Labour policies and currency, Labour is attacking the SNP as closet tories on social policy and oil revenues.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited August 2014
    hucks67 said:

    Salmond using coalition failures as a reason for Scotland to have independence.

    Of course, he's no fool.

    I am however a little annoyed at the extent of applause at the line that essentially says that because Darling agrees with the Tories and LDs about Scottish independence, he is sharing a platform with them, that he must somehow either favour or not object to everything those other parties believe in. It's absurd, but the majority of the crowd seem to love it, and many people seem to believe it.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758

    If I am undecided I just hear two blokes shouting at each other.

    Yes the debate in not being properly chaired.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    wish the chair would step in and stop them talking/shouting over each other - poor so far.
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    Quincel said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    Quincel said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    The moderator was wrong there. Alastair doesn't require a plan B, because the Union exists as it is.

    Darling repeatedly hammered Salmond with "What if you're wrong?" last time and plays the "I'm a loyal Scot who wants the best for it regardless of outcome" card the whole time. He made a rod for his own back there and does need a Plan B given it.
    Sorry, he is arguing for the status quo, so why does he need a plan B?
    Because he's positioned himself as someone with answers regardless of the outcome, and because he demanded a Plan B from Salmond not because he was leader of the No campaign but as a matter of personal integrity last time. He has to therefore reciprocate.
    No he doesn't. Salmond is the one trying to sell the dream.

    Then he shouldn't have implied that Salmond needed a Plan B to show he wasn't intellectually dishonest, arrogant and incapable of imagining he might be wrong. If you do that, don't be surprised when people ask you what your plan is if you're wrong.
    But Salmond is intellectually dishonest, arrogant and incapable of imagining he might be wrong.
    You're suggesting he doesn't need a Plan B because politics is fair? I don't mean he needs one as a logical argument, I mean he needs one politically. At least for this debate. Long-term it doesn't really matter.
    Long term/short term, it doesn't matter, because Salmond is going to lose.

    Please note, I am not saying the Yes campaign or even the SNP is going to lose. What ever happens, will he ever be allowed to run Scotland after? Do you, as an obvious YESNP'er (or just a YES'er) think that Salmond can be trusted to be honest and truthful?
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Southam

    And the status quo is a better together win. Salmond has his tactics wrong.
This discussion has been closed.