C4 News FactCheck @FactCheck 2m Prof Brian Ashcroft says Scotland has received more in public spending over 32 years than it paid in taxes INCLUDING geographic share of oil
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?
I'm not a Yes'er, but if Salmond was to lead the SNP to independence I can't really imagine who would challenge him for leadership of the party and the SNP would surely stand an excellent chance in the first elections.
EDIT: Also, and my phrasing was bad, but by long-term I meant in the lifetime of the referendum campaign. ie. I don't think he needs a Plan B over the next 4 weeks, I just think him not having one an hour ago was a problem.
Alex Salmond trying to turn into a Scots version of de Kirchner with threats of default?
It's a stupid threat. An independent Scotland can of course choose to default, and the UK can in turn choose not to trade with Scotland. Given the disparity in size I'm certain that Scotland would feel more pain.
SNP MSP Humza Yousaf: Alistair Darling knows he's losing this he's flailing, shouting, wagging finger, going red in the face - they huff and they puff
Genuine question - how do the fiercely partisan make arguments against their opponents that they know apply to their own side with such convinction?
Salmond is gesturing with whole fist or several fingers, he's interrupting and getting louder too. He's doing better than Darling at appearing restrained and reasonable, but he's not exactly a picture of dignified calm up there.
This will also apply as both sides claim victory and the obvious winner will mock the other side for attempting to spin it as a win for them, as though they did not do so last time.
Frankly, I wouldn't let either of them near running a country.
Interesting points though by Salmond, skewering Labour on not reversing Coalition welfare cuts. A hint of the problems Miliband is going to have in the general election campaign.
Alex Salmond trying to turn into a Scots version of de Kirchner with threats of default?
It's a stupid threat. An independent Scotland can of course choose to default, and the UK can in turn choose not to trade with Scotland. Given the disparity in size I'm certain that Scotland would feel more pain.
This whole debate seems to have been conducted by YeSNP supporters in total ignorance of the disparity in size between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Eg. just because Oil is crucial to Scotland's ability to maintain current levels of spending post independence it assumes that it is of vital importance to the UK. When the reality is that it is a useful contribution to the UK economy, no more.
What a dreadful debate this is. It just looks to me like the Union has reached its natural end. We all feel huge frustration with the Westminster system. The Scots have a chance to do something about it. That's what this is all about.
This debate is very poorly chaired. Which benefits No as there will be no knock out blows tonight.
Yes I think so.
Salmond won. Then he made a mistake, tried to push home his advantage too assertively, and it's become a pub argument at last orders which resolved nothing.
I can't be bothered to watch it. I don't think it will make much difference to the outcome of the referendum.
Almost certainly not, the last one didn't seem to impact the polls at all. But it's all part of the theatre of politics which fires up both sides. Both are pretty fired up already in this particular debate, but if someone is unmistakably a disaster, beyond the ability to spin it, then it can impact the campaign's flow and focus which might have more of an impact I think.
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.
We're using the wrong words here. By presenting a currency union as an option that only needs the consent of the Scottish people, Salmond is not being "intellectually dishonest" or "wrong" or "too clever", he is lying. This point is beyond party politics. He is the First Minister of Scotland and is obliged to present the facts to the Scottish people so they can make an informed decision. By pretending that a currency union is on the cards despite it being repeatedly explained that it isn't, he is lying. Somebody needs to call him on it.
It just looks to me like the Union has reached its natural end. We all feel huge frustration with the Westminster system. The Scots have a chance to do something about it.
Is DevoMax not doing something about it? Efforts to transform and sustain the union may not be sufficient for many, but even if it is the end for the union in its current form does not mean that it has to end completely.
This debate again showing why Cameron was wise to duck out, he could never have argued the leftwing case on spending and the NHS unlike Darling and Scotland is a slightly more left of centre nation than England
What a dreadful debate this is. It just looks to me like the Union has reached its natural end. We all feel huge frustration with the Westminster system. The Scots have a chance to do something about it. That's what this is all about.
Correct. I would predict that if the Tories got in again, there would be moves from other parts of the UK to split. I just don't think that the Tories as a party are truly one nation, as most of their support is from English shires. As someone else commented, the Tories need to change, so they people throughout the country feel that they represent them. Not a load of old Etonians.
What a dreadful debate this is. It just looks to me like the Union has reached its natural end. We all feel huge frustration with the Westminster system. The Scots have a chance to do something about it. That's what this is all about.
Correct. I would predict that if the Tories got in again, there would be moves from other parts of the UK to split. I just don't think that the Tories as a party are truly one nation, as most of their support is from English shires. As someone else commented, the Tories need to change, so they people throughout the country feel that they represent them. Not a load of old Etonians.
Nah. Wales ain't going anywhere in the foreseeable future. Dream on.
It just looks to me like the Union has reached its natural end. We all feel huge frustration with the Westminster system. The Scots have a chance to do something about it.
Is DevoMax not doing something about it? Efforts to transform and sustain the union may not be sufficient for many, but even if it is the end for the union in its current form does not mean that it has to end completely.
The strategy must be to give Scotland more and more powers until they are defacto independent. Then just let them float off into the distance with the rest of the country not being too bothered about it.
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.
We're using the wrong words here. By presenting a currency union as an option that only needs the consent of the Scottish people, Salmond is not being "intellectually dishonest" or "wrong" or "too clever", he is lying. This point is beyond party politics. He is the First Minister of Scotland and is obliged to present the facts to the Scottish people so they can make an informed decision. By pretending that a currency union is on the cards despite it being repeatedly explained that it isn't, he is lying. Somebody needs to call him on it.
They should. I'm just saying it won't matter. An outright lie by any side should be called out by neutrals, the opposition and even that side's own supporters, but even if it is, it will be disputed for the length of the campaign and the noise will be enough to lower any outrage among those who are not already decided one way or the other in the confusion.
I do not believe politicians routinely outright lie - it is generally too risky to bother - sticking to lies of omission and all the varied tactics of spinning, but I very much believe many outright lies will be told in the next few weeks, and any problems from those lies deemed a matter for another day for the one's telling them.
What a dreadful debate this is. It just looks to me like the Union has reached its natural end. We all feel huge frustration with the Westminster system. The Scots have a chance to do something about it. That's what this is all about.
Correct. I would predict that if the Tories got in again, there would be moves from other parts of the UK to split. I just don't think that the Tories as a party are truly one nation, as most of their support is from English shires. As someone else commented, the Tories need to change, so they people throughout the country feel that they represent them. Not a load of old Etonians.
Nah. Wales ain't going anywhere in the foreseeable future. Dream on.
What a dreadful debate this is. It just looks to me like the Union has reached its natural end. We all feel huge frustration with the Westminster system. The Scots have a chance to do something about it. That's what this is all about.
Correct. I would predict that if the Tories got in again, there would be moves from other parts of the UK to split. I just don't think that the Tories as a party are truly one nation, as most of their support is from English shires. As someone else commented, the Tories need to change, so they people throughout the country feel that they represent them. Not a load of old Etonians.
Nah. Wales ain't going anywhere in the foreseeable future. Dream on.
Salmond the winner, but not by enough to change anything. The second debate was always likely to be a non-event, and in the absence of a knock-out blow or huge gaffe that has indeed been the case.
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?
I'm not a Yes'er, but if Salmond was to lead the SNP to independence I can't really imagine who would challenge him for leadership of the party and the SNP would surely stand an excellent chance in the first elections.
EDIT: Also, and my phrasing was bad, but by long-term I meant in the lifetime of the referendum campaign. ie. I don't think he needs a Plan B over the next 4 weeks, I just think him not having one an hour ago was a problem.
Rumour has it that in the event of a No win, Salmond will be challenged by Sturgeon within 3 days, and she will win. There are too many people in the SNP who dislike Salmond with a passion and have only been keeping quite because he might actually win Independence.
Remember, the SNP are made up of members of many different political and religious colours who all believe that an Independent Scotland will evolve accordingly to their dreams.
They should. I'm just saying it won't matter. An outright lie by any side should be called out by neutrals, the opposition and even that side's own supporters, but even if it is, it will be disputed for the length of the campaign and the noise will be enough to lower any outrage among those who are not already decided one way or the other in the confusion.
I know. I'm just offended. A government should not, absent a life-or-death situation, lie to its people. If we have hit the point where Salmond's government is deceiving the Scottish people, then we really have crossed a line.
...I very much believe many outright lies will be told in the next few weeks, and any problems from those lies deemed a matter for another day for the one's telling them.
Salmond should finish off with "how was it for you Darling?"
"Ahm... not all that good, Blackadder. Rather hoped I'd get through the whole show. Go back to work at the Treasury, keep wicket for the Edinburgh Gentlemen, marry Johann Lamont... Made a note in my diary on the way here. Simply says: 'Bugger'."
I think Salmond tapered off a bit toward the end, but he'd done enough to win it comfortably. Just seemed so much more comfortable, and mocked Darling a lot more to make opposition to him seem absurd if it agreed with Darling. Could have gone against him that, but he pulled it off.
Pulled out the 'nothing positive to say' line though, which is another of the spin lines which, despite a negative campaign, is just plain wrong though, even if it plays well.
The bbc packed thiss debate full of yes supporters.
Either that or theyve been a lot lot more vocal.
I'd say it was this, rather than BBC stuffing the audience. Perhaps they think they need to win this one, and therefore are marginally louder? Still, I don't think the audience should be doing any clapping/cheering/booing etc.
The bbc packed thiss debate full of yes supporters.
Either that or theyve been a lot lot more vocal.
I suspect they are just more vocal. That the Yes side are already more energetic and passionate is not really in doubt, and most knew Salmond was a bit off last time (even if they thought he won), so encouraging cheer was even more essential.
If the crowd was evenly split and Yes were no more vocal than No, the Union is in big trouble, as they fell heavily on Salmond's side tonight.
This debate again showing why Cameron was wise to duck out, he could never have argued the leftwing case on spending and the NHS unlike Darling and Scotland is a slightly more left of centre nation than England
Just who is this debate between? Salmond is leader of the SNP and putative PM of an independent Scotland. Just who do the electorate have to judge him in opposition to? Daling is leader of a coalition - well everybody other than the SNP really - there is no notion of him being a political alternative to Salmond. So this is just a big advert for Salmond and if there is no movent or even worse (or better) a movement away from him then its a very bad advert for him. This 'debate' is not a real confrontation between alternative leaders. As with every other pig in a poke that Salmond is offering this is all unknown.
Any word on any reaction polls? I suspect Salmond will have the upper hand, but it was very very shouty and can't imagine it did much to sway undecideds, just firm up the base.
As a dedicated no supporter I would have to accept that Salmond edged that. Darling tried to do the same again. It didn't work. And he made mistakes an advocate should not make.
Delusional - the debate is just aspiration rather than anything to do with what will actually happen. Independence is a large step into the unknown, with modest benefits if it works as planned, but significant risks if it doesn't. The free market is likely to vote with its feet on the merits of Scottish independence. Good or bad I admit I don't know, but then no one else does either.
Comments
Prof Brian Ashcroft says Scotland has received more in public spending over 32 years than it paid in taxes INCLUDING geographic share of oil
EDIT: Also, and my phrasing was bad, but by long-term I meant in the lifetime of the referendum campaign. ie. I don't think he needs a Plan B over the next 4 weeks, I just think him not having one an hour ago was a problem.
I haven't heard of him in quite some time.
You are lucky I have heard it for over 40 years, and it never gets reasonable.
Genuine question - how do the fiercely partisan make arguments against their opponents that they know apply to their own side with such convinction?
Salmond is gesturing with whole fist or several fingers, he's interrupting and getting louder too. He's doing better than Darling at appearing restrained and reasonable, but he's not exactly a picture of dignified calm up there.
This will also apply as both sides claim victory and the obvious winner will mock the other side for attempting to spin it as a win for them, as though they did not do so last time.
Interesting points though by Salmond, skewering Labour on not reversing Coalition welfare cuts. A hint of the problems Miliband is going to have in the general election campaign.
This debate is like an Alan Partidge idea on par with Inner City Sumo.
Its like a Michael Bay production.
"Has anything, ever, *not* been a reason for Scotland to have independence? "
Our football team?
I would like a £1000 bet on that please. You already owe me a meal out.
Salmond won. Then he made a mistake, tried to push home his advantage too assertively, and it's become a pub argument at last orders which resolved nothing.
Draw. Which favours No.
Happy to meet my meal debt. Tell me when suits you.
Quincel On the bedroom tax depends how you phrase it
Apparently I have to warn you that I may have a couple of hours of internet time left...
(edited because I apparently use a tonal (wrong word) style when I touch type)
He could however lose a few of those gained by efforts in the "schemes"
( a "scheme" being a large housing development outside of a city)
Trident joins Oil and Social spending on the side of NO.
You can win the debate.
Good luck on 18th Sept.
I do not believe politicians routinely outright lie - it is generally too risky to bother - sticking to lies of omission and all the varied tactics of spinning, but I very much believe many outright lies will be told in the next few weeks, and any problems from those lies deemed a matter for another day for the one's telling them.
That's labour policy isn't it ;-)
You couldnt make jokes like that today.
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?
I'm not a Yes'er, but if Salmond was to lead the SNP to independence I can't really imagine who would challenge him for leadership of the party and the SNP would surely stand an excellent chance in the first elections.
EDIT: Also, and my phrasing was bad, but by long-term I meant in the lifetime of the referendum campaign. ie. I don't think he needs a Plan B over the next 4 weeks, I just think him not having one an hour ago was a problem.
Rumour has it that in the event of a No win, Salmond will be challenged by Sturgeon within 3 days, and she will win. There are too many people in the SNP who dislike Salmond with a passion and have only been keeping quite because he might actually win Independence.
Remember, the SNP are made up of members of many different political and religious colours who all believe that an Independent Scotland will evolve accordingly to their dreams.
"The Tories have more MPs in Wales"
A lot of that is to do with rich English people buying up the houses, and Welsh kids moving to where those people came from, but in poorer houses
Pulled out the 'nothing positive to say' line though, which is another of the spin lines which, despite a negative campaign, is just plain wrong though, even if it plays well.
I thought Darling was poor tonight, Salmond is nothing but a common huckster but he was allowed to get away with it yet again tonight.
*prepares for Sky news fact checker with glasses*
[Gets his PB Coat/maybe glass of circa 40%]
Salmond won, Darling lost.
The currency was the killer again, it killed Darling this time.
If the crowd was evenly split and Yes were no more vocal than No, the Union is in big trouble, as they fell heavily on Salmond's side tonight.
Salmond is leader of the SNP and putative PM of an independent Scotland. Just who do the electorate have to judge him in opposition to? Daling is leader of a coalition - well everybody other than the SNP really - there is no notion of him being a political alternative to Salmond.
So this is just a big advert for Salmond and if there is no movent or even worse (or better) a movement away from him then its a very bad advert for him. This 'debate' is not a real confrontation between alternative leaders. As with every other pig in a poke that Salmond is offering this is all unknown.
You could make the same point about rural Oxfordshire, Sussex, or Suffolk really.