X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

Alex Salmond fails to land the blow he desperately needed

5 August 2014

10:58 PM

5 August 2014

10:58 PM

Many people, I’m sure, will already be calling the first TV debate in Alistair Darling’s favour. That is a fair point to make but it was not quite as straightforward as that.

I think a truer reflection would be this: Darling won on substance but lost on style, while Alex Salmond won on style but lost on substance. That may seem a bit pedantic, but it matters.

First, the question of style: Salmond was – as we knew he would be – calm, composed and articulate.

Darling was – as many in his camp feared he would be – anxious, shouty and irritable. The former Chancellor looked nervous. He had trouble getting his message across. Indeed, even his eyebrows kept darting up and down as if constantly looking for a way out. In short, he allowed himself to get flustered by the event, by the audience, and by the First Minister who, when he saw Darling starting to get agitated, just smiled and kept on winding him up.

So, if anybody watched the debate with the sound off (and many might well have done given that the STV player was having trouble coping with the online demand) it would have looked like a clear and comfortable victory for the First Minister.

But then we come to substance, and, as has been the case for the whole of the campaign, it all boiled down to the currency.

[Alt-Text]


Darling got his chance in the second section of the two-hour long STV special when he cross-examined Salmond on his plan B, if, as the Treasury has made clear, the UK refuses to share sterling with an independent Scotland.

Darling hammered away at this point. He wouldn’t let it go. Time and again he asked Salmond what his ‘plan B’ was. Each time Salmond refused to answer, Darling went at it again.

Sections of the audience – carefully picked to reflect Yes, No and undecided opinion – started booing and there was nothing Salmond or his supporters could do. He was on the ropes.

Salmond did come back at Darling and made him squirm, but this was simply on whether he agreed with a quote made by David Cameron on Scotland’s ability to be successful as a small, independent country. That wasn’t a game-changing point, but the currency question was.

Overall, voters on both sides will take what they want from it, using the performances of both politicians to justify the decision they have already made.

But this debate wasn’t about them. It was about the 10–15 per cent in the middle who still claim to be undecided, and this is where Darling’s success on the currency, and his win on this most important matter of substance, will be most telling.

The big question hanging over this whole campaign has been Scotland’s currency post-independence, and there can’t have been a single undecided voter who was reassured by the First Minister’s claims on it tonight.

Darling didn’t perform that well. He appeared anxious, flustered and occasionally panicky; but he got over the one key message of the night, and, in a campaign focused as narrowly as this one has been on a small number of key issues, that is going to have an effect.

Darling effectively got Salmond to admit there really is no ‘plan B’ – or, as Darling said towards the end: ‘far too much of this debate has been characterised by guesswork, blind faith and crossed fingers’.

And if – as I suspect – that is the one message undecided voters take from this debate, then in the final analysis, whatever is said by both sides about this particular confrontation, Salmond may well end up losing far more than just a debate.

And so the odds seem to suggest in the aftermath: Ladbrokes reports that the odds on a victory for Salmond’s camp have lengthened to 4/1 from 7/2, with ‘No’ holding fast at 1/6.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close