Coffee House The View from 22

View from 22 podcast special: Scottish independence debate round two

26 August 2014

26 August 2014

In this View from 22 podcast special, Alex MassieIsabel Hardman and Fraser Nelson analyse this evening’s going on in Glasgow, as Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling took part in the second round of their independence debates.

The polls released immediately after the debate from The Guardian/ICM has Salmond the clear winner on 79%, with Darling on just 21% of the vote. But are the Yes campaigners right to be ‘cock-a-hoop’ about tonight, or will things appear differently in a few days when the dust has settled? 


More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us.

Show comments
  • Roger Hudson

    It’s not just the economy.
    .. Scotland long a province, be a nation once again…
    Just answer this question : how large is Tuvalu ?

  • Barzini

    I’m starting to wonder if the UK establishment doesn’t actually secretly want Scotland to vote Yes – Alistair fucking Darling!

    Just look at the guy, of all the people Cameron could have chosen, he chose this guy to represent the UK……

    It just doesn’t make sense…….whilst many people may be divided on the Yes/NO question, is there anyone from either side that thought this was the best guy to send the ‘Better Together’ message?

  • flippit

    Salmond ‘won’ the debate, if you can call it that but it won’t transfer to votes, anymore than the no vote increased after Darling’s victory in the first one. No new information came out last night, there was no game changer, the SNP have recovered a bit of pride and the yes troops rallied, but the whole thing would have been a turn-off for everybody except those who wanted to see Salmond redeem himself. And seriously, for the first time I felt sorry for Scots; our Westminster lot aren’t that bad after all.

    • GUBU

      Indeed.

      These two debates made the 2010 general election debates look positively intellectual – which is saying something.

      On the one hand you have Mr Darling, a man who appears to be perpetually fighting for control of his own eyebrows, and losing.

      On the other hand you have Mr Salmond, who has evidently (and perhaps ominously for proponents of a ‘Yes’ vote) taken to frequenting Kim Il Jong’s barber.

      David Cameron, by contrast, appears almost statesmanlike – with the emphasis on ‘almost’.

  • English Majority

    What we should consider is this:

    Let’s use Alex Massie’s regular, virulently anti-England, pro-mass immigration, pro-multiculturalism articles as a measurer. Now, if Alex Massie represents most Scottish people, we really, REALLY need to separate.

  • terence patrick hewett

    Go back to first principles: Why does the SNP exist? Why does UKIP exist? The implication is: that the Westminster system no longer functions: that the mainstream political parties no longer represent the demos but represent special interests.

    The problem (as I see it) is this:

    The British military defeat in the Americas in 1776 marked the beginning of the Whig ascendency: they represented the interests of trade and industry and the protagonists of Republicanism. Republicanism eventually found its home in
    the US.

    When the Labour party rendered the Liberals un-electable the Whig interests decamped to the Tory party and made it their own. All well and good: when British industry was British they reflected British interests: but now British industry is no longer British but multi-national (who have their own agendas and nothing wrong with that) the Tory party have simply made an easy jump to reflect those agendas.

    The Labour Party was once the party reflecting the interests of the working man but allowed itself to be taken over by the wet dreams of middle class revolutionaries and the interests of the magnates of organised labour.

    So we inherit two parties that reflect special interests; not the interests of the demos. And this situation has impacted on our once peerless institutions.

    Ergo; what to do about it?

  • rjbh

    lets face it Scotland will be a nation again, and Scottish MPs will no longer vote on English issues,… in fact there will be no need for Scottish MPs at Westminster..

    England can take much comfort from the Yes campaigns inevitable Victory

    • terence patrick hewett

      It’s great for the pub: but in the real world it doesn’t stack up.

  • john

    Darling should stay in Blackadder.

  • cambridgeelephant

    The podcast sounded like it was held in a wind tunnel !

  • Mike

    Divorce affects both parties and nothing is more truer than whats happening here.

    Being English and not the one filing for divorce, I should have an equal say in what happens over this divorce specifically as far as maintenance payments are concerned. The financial settlement if there are irreconcilable differences between England & Scotland has to be fair on both sides. Debts are ALWAYS taken out of the any assets you may have when reaching a financial settlement and likewise the Scottish debt that was accrued during the ‘marriage’ should similarly be taken into account.

    As Salmond claims he has stacks of oil reserves I’d be quite happy to extend that debt to be paid off over say 10 years from oil revenues and after that we’ll be square. As for staying in Sterling, as he wont be accountable to our tax regimes then his only option is to go it alone and track the pound, create his own currency or join the euro (assuming he can).

    • Airey Belvoir

      Salmond also knows that, if the wheels come off his vaunted independent economy, a weak and complaisant Westminster Government will bail him out – remember how much we bunged Ireland when they hit the buffers.

      • Mike

        I’m sure you’re right as just as banks were too big to fail so would Scotland be. Conniving B******* is all I can say and its time governments let them fail to set a real example of prudence !.

  • global city

    Manchester City won 3-1 in the important face off last night.

    I’m gutted

  • @PhilKean1

    .
    Do the British people face a greater threat than even the EU?

    You bet they do. And it comes in the form of an “independent” Scotland being part of a British currency union.

    Firstly, a simple to understand fact. If Scotland goes, Britain’s economy will receive a welcome, but undeserved boost.
    Why? Because there are financial services businesses who are already making plans to move their bases of operations south of the border. There are companies who wish to come to Britain who will now invest in the UK and not in Scotland. And property speculators and investors are likely to divest themselves of their Scottish portfolios and focus on the remaining UK.

    However, the danger to the people of the UK of allowing Scotland to participate in a Sterling currency union is beyond calculation.

    (1) – Because monetary policy would be BOUND to take account of the needs and conditions associated with Socialist Scotland – which would act against the UK’s overall best interests.
    (2) – Because Socialist Scotland would have an effective VETO on ALL aspects of the British peoples’ self-determination – including staying or leaving the EU.
    (3) – Because the currency union’s central bank would likely stand as guarantor for any losses incurred in the event of the collapse of a Scottish financial institution.
    (4) – If Socialist Scotland was given the same, CRAZY ability to raise money on the markets, as – currently – do Euro-using states, it would give them the ability to debase and devalue Sterling.

    Last night’s debate was notable for a number of reasons, one of which was the absence of any recognition of the views and best interests of the people of the rest of the UK.

    It is about time politicians started to understand that – THIS ISN’T ALL ABOUT SCOTLAND !
    .

    • Blindsideflanker

      “THIS ISN’T ALL ABOUT SCOTLAND ! ”

      Which is something that just doesn’t compute in Scottish minds, and to suggest that it isn’t all about Scotland will get you a load of abuse for being anti Scottish, and trying to put them down.

      • @PhilKean1

        True.

        It has been far too much about Scotland for far too long.
        .

      • Jambo25

        Its not all about England either but its the way it is treated in right wing publications in England.

      • Mike

        There are two parties in a union that may be dissolved, its like a marriage. It is NOT just the party that’s filing for divorce that gets all the say or all of the assets. Suck it up and stop sounding like a prima donna !

        • Blindsideflanker

          I am not sure who or what your comments are directed to.

          I would agree with you it being like a divorce, and agree that it is both parties who get a say in the matter, where as at the moment it is the Scots who think they can write the terms of the divorce without any input from the other side, and when there is, they claim it is interference and anti Scottish bullying. But I don’t quite understand you comment about sounding like a prima donna?

          • HJ777

            It isn’t “the Scots” who think that they can dictate terms.

            It is the Nats who are asserting they can, and who have the barefaced cheek to accuse anyone who says otherwise of anti-Scottish “bullying”.

          • Mike

            Apologies, I mixed this response that should have been aimed elsewhere. Sorry.

        • terence patrick hewett

          There are 4 nations in the union: not two.

          • Mike

            I stand corrected and certainly did not wish to ignore Wales or N. Ireland from the equation however, the ‘divorce’ is between two parties, groups, set/s of countries and not 4 countries each wishing to divorce from each other.

            Not withstanding that 4 parties are involved here, I still fail to see why three of them should have no say in reaching a financial settlement for the ‘divorce’ whilst the one filing for ‘divorce’ should have all the say. Each of the parties involved has debts or assets and they should be assessed in the divorce settlement.

  • @PhilKean1

    .
    85% of Scottish people don’t understand the difference between “currency union” and “using the pound”

    – with the percentage South of the border only about 10% lower. I believe that Alex Salmond is very aware of this fact.

    It was, therefore, Salmond’s main tactic to get Darling to admit publicly that nothing can stop Scotland using the pound. And Alistair Darling duly obliged.

    Today we have many more Scottish residents than there were yesterday waking to the belief that the Westminster Government is bluffing about Scotland being excluded from a Sterling currency union.

    So, not only did Alistair Darling trip up – he remained flat on his face.
    .

    • Mike

      They’ll have a rude awakening when they can’t use our pound and are unable to track it either. Like many wives that file for divorce because they think the grass is greener elsewhere, over 50% regret it and wish they could turn the clock back. Realization sets in when they suddenly find a single income for one person doesn’t go as afar as two incomes for two people.

      That’s the Salmond ploy, he knows it but most north of the border haven’t thought this through.

      • @PhilKean1

        .
        Yes, some cynical tactics employed.

        The debate was excruciating to watch. The facts were made to look like deception – and trickery was made to look like discovery.

        .

  • Colonel Mustard

    Whatever was that nonsense about “Give me a mandate to use the pound”?

    Since Salmond appears to be embarking on a bid too far let me paraphrase Major-General Sosabowski.

    But the UK government, Mr Salmond, the UK government!

    • Michael Mckeown

      What was he inviting Darling to join him in negotiations for? the residents of Scotland already elected Darling to deal with reserved matters they never elected Salmond to do the same.

  • swatnan

    Looks like Scotland is split down the middle 51:49, between Highlands and Lowlands, between the Haves and Havenots, between the Aristocracy in Edinburgh and the Poor in the Gorbals, between those that wish to make Scotland a Nuclear Free Zone and those that want to waste money on Weapons that are never going to be used. In the end it could all turn on those 1000 odd workers at Faslane that want to keep their jobs and don’t see the bigger picutre of a Better Scotland, free at last.
    The surprising thing is that the split is exactly the same as 20 years ago when the Devolution Debates were taking place. Some people just don’t like change because they have vested interests in keeping other people down.

    • Mike

      Faslane could turn into a low wage industry and a good deal for England when the Scottish pound plummets as we wont be paying them in sterling. Then we’ll also see many Scots coming to England just like Eastern Europeans just to get a job.

      • wobble

        But they won’t be part of the EU …..so that won’t automatically give them working ,immigration or benefit rights .,.surely ?

  • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

    The concept of Union has always meant security from outside invasion, the original threat to Presbyterian Scotland and Anglican England being an invasion from either Catholic France or Catholic Spain. What else would bring two such diverse cultures together, the Celts of Scotland and the Anglo-Saxon Normans of England? And the threat of foreign invasion is more subtle today, even unseen, because the enemy is weak in numbers, hence the enemy’s need to conceal its identity. Who is this enemy that threatens Britain?

    The enemy is within and without, and are Marxists who’ve co-opted the political parties of the West, including the West’s leading institutions, from the media to religion. We know this to be true not only because we were warned of the enemy within by KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn in 1962, but because the West’s institutions failed to warn its populations that the collapse of the USSR (and East Bloc nations) was a strategic disinformation operation, as proved by the West’s failure to not only verify the collapse, but de-Communize the Soviet Armed Forces officer corps (which was 90% Communist Party officered in late 1991), and failure to de-mobilize the six-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Ministry of Interior and militia to control the populations in the larger Soviet cities.

    The West’s fate depended on verification of the collapse of the USSR, verification’s absence proving co-option of the West’s institutions. On the Soviet side, there could be no collapse when (1) the Soviet Armed Forces officer corps remained Communist Party dominated; and (2) six-million vigilantes continued to control the population.

    In order for Scotland to decide on Union or independence, Scots must be armed with all the information that’s necessary to make the correct decision. The co-opted media will not present the facts as laid out above.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Julia Middleton, former editor of Marxism Today, rose from nowhere in 1989 with unknown source funding to lead a global organisation that provides “leadership training” throughout the public sector. This extraordinary organisation which conducts its affairs in secret, operates as a charity and apparently has no need to compete or tender to provide “training” paid for by taxpayers.

      Unelected and unaccountable managers are re-cast as “leaders” with a mission to “lead beyond authority”. The agenda is rooted in the same Chicago community organising that Obama emerged from a few years before Middleton began her project.

      The project works on the basis of “empowerment” of communities but is about securing power for a particular reform agenda by infiltrating institutions and then networking alumni to circumvent due process and governance.

      “Through on-site and supplementary trainings, grassroots leaders develop the skills necessary to take ownership of issues, identify, articulate and solve local problems in the community and in the policy arena.”

      “Leaders understand that multi-issue organizing requires multiple approaches that must be strategically determined to insure victorious outcomes.”

      “Leadership and power must be shared to allow for increased and sustained engagement and opportunities for all members to become fully and equitably engaged in providing leadership to issues.”

      Remember, these “leaders” are not elected. They stand on no mandate for the “reforms” they are implementing and there is neither accountability nor transparency for them.

      • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

        As I said, Marxist infiltration (with the assistance of Moscow & Allies, of course) of not only Western political parties, but every institution in the West, ranging from academia (no kidding!) to physics.

        There is a simple solution while the United States Armed Forces, the British Armed Forces and NATO remain, and that is all current political parties must be disbanded, and new parties formed where candidates are vetted, including the use of the polygraph. It’s incredulous that the fate of the West is placed into the hands of un-vetted politicians who hold the West’s fate in their traitorous hands.

    • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

      Part II of II

      While we don’t know when exactly the Democratic Party was co-opted by Marxists, thanks to the peculiar historical nature surrounding the founding of the Republican Party, we do know when exactly the party of Lincoln was co-opted…

      Marxists/Socialists who after the failed 1848 revolution in Germany came to the United States. Upon arrival to the United States they infiltrated the embryonic Republican Party, many forming voluntary Germanic Union Armies and becoming General Officers themselves within the Union Army, such as…

      (1) Brigadier General Joseph WEYDEMEYER of the Union Army was a close friend of Karl MARX and Fredrick Engels in the London Communist League (Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. DANA —close friend of Marx, published with Joseph Weydemyer a number of Communist Journals and, also “The Communist Manifesto,” commissioned by Karl Marx. As a member of the Communist/Socialist Fourier Society in America, Dana was well acquainted with Marx and Marx’s colleague in Communism, Fredrick Engels. Dana, also, was a friend of all Marxists in the Republican Party, offering assistance to them almost upon their arrival on the American continent.);

      (2) Brigadier General Louis BLENKER, Union Army—radical socialist/Communist from Germany—was remarkably successful in encouraging German immigrants to join the Union Army and the Republican Party;

      (3) Major General August WILLICH—often called “The Reddest of the Red ‘48ers” was a member of the London Communist League with Karl MARX and Fredrick ENGLES. Before seeking refuge in the U.S. Willich was a personal acquaintance of Karl MARX;

      (4) Major Robert ROSA, of the Union Army, was a proud member of the New York Communist Club;

      (5) Brigadier General Carl SCHURZ –as a young socialist, was noted for helping Gottfried Kinkel of Bonn escape from Spandau while imprisoned there for his socialist activities in the ’48 Revolts. Schurz came to America in 1848. He was a forty-eighter who became very active in the development of the Republican Party and in politics. He was given a high position by Lincoln in the Union Army;

      (6) Brigadier General Alexander Von Schimmelfenning, like most of the other MARXISTS /Socialist/Communists who came to the U.S. after their failed uprising in 1848;

      (7) Major General Franz SIEGEL, thought to be one of Lincoln’s most controversial and the poorest of his generals;

      (8) Commander Friedrich Karl Franz HECKER, (exact military title not known) known as “Red” and “Flagrant Friedrich.” Educated in Germany, received his doctor of law degree in Munich. He was expelled from Prussia. Arriving in the U.S., he took part in the creation of the Republican Party, encouraged the proliferation of German newspapers carrying the Socialist propaganda, aided in the election of Lincoln, and propagandized heavily among German immigrants for volunteers for the Union Army. He was named Commander of a regiment he raised of Germans;

      (9) General John C. FREMONT was noted for his close association with all of the socialist/communists whom Lincoln placed in positions of command in his army. Fremont was the first Republican candidate for president. He was considered to be the “darling” of the most radical socialists. His chief of staff, early in the war, was Hungarian socialist revolutionary;

      (10) Brevet Major General Frederick Charles SALOMON, one of a group of four radical socialist brothers, with highly similar names– three of whom were in the group of Socialist 1848ers. Frederick began his career in the Union Army as a Captain in MO, wound up as a Colonel in the Ninth Wisconsin Volunteer Regiment, then a brigadier general and a brevet major general;

      11. Brevetted Brigadier General Charles E. Salomon, also started his American military career with a bunch of MO volunteers. Born in Prussia, he, also, was one of the radical socialists arriving in the U.S. after the 1848 Socialist uprising failure and was a brother to Frederick Charles;

      12. Governor Edward Salomon, a third Salomon brother, also born in Prussia, did not do military service, but ran for political office in Wisconsin, was elected lieutenant governor, becoming Governor of Wisconsin when the elected Governor “drowned”; and

      13. Colonel Fritz ANNEKE/ANNECKE was a Forty-eighter, with a strong leftward tilt. He was a Communist League member and a Baden Revolt veteran…the list goes on…

      The failed 1848 revolutions thought Marxists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly, so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties.

      By the way, did you notice who Lincoln’s last Assistant Secretary of War was? Marx’s confident here in the United States–Charles Dana, who when a newspaper editor earlier in his professional life published all of Marx’s writings for his newspaper the New York Daily Tribune. He also published the first American printing of Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto’…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Anderson_Dana

      Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; and (3) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation.

      Now read these two revealing quotes from Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and former Soviet minister of foreign affairs Eduard Shevardnadze, and what they have in mind for Europe in the near future:

      “Editor’s Note: The phrases ‘From the Atlantic to the Urals’, ‘From the Atlantic to Vladivostok’ and ‘From Vancouver to Vladivostok’ are interchangeable in the strategists’ lexicon. In the course of his Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, delivered in Oslo in June 1992, Gorbachev said: ‘Our [sic] vision of the European space from the Atlantic to the Urals is not that of a closed system. Since it includes the Soviet Union [sic], which reaches to the shores of the Pacific, it goes beyond nominal geographical boundaries’. Note that Gorbachev, who had been out of office for six months, referred to the Soviet Union, not Russia. In an interview on Moscow Television on 19 November 1991, Eduard Shevardnadze continued speaking as though he was still Soviet Foreign Minister: ‘I think that the idea of a Common European Home, the building of a united Europe, and I would like to underline today, of great Europe, the building of Great Europe, great, united Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, including all our territory, most probably a European-Asian space, this project is inevitable. I am sure that we will come to building a united military space as well. To say more precisely: we will build a united Europe, whose security will be based on the principles of collective security. Precisely, collective security’. These statements by key implementers of the strategy reflect the central strategic objective of asserting ‘irreversible’ Russian/Soviet hegemony over Eurasia, thus establishing the primary geographical component of the intended World Government.” — ‘The Perestroika Deception’, by KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn.

      http://www.spiritoftruth.org/The_Perestroika_Deception.pdf

      and here’s more on the upcoming “Atlantic to Vladivostok” union…

      http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/en/publications/interview/interview0004.html

  • Cymrugel

    Salmond absolutely hammered him. The man was totally outclassed.

    • High Sheriff

      You may be correct but it is not about personalities.
      I assume you are Scottish as am I.
      It is about preventing our economy collapsing and our kids having jobs.

      • Jambo25

        There is probably as much chance of that happening with a Yes or No vote. It depends very much how the economy and wider society are managed.

        • HJ777

          Scotland’s economy is not going to suddenly collapse if there is no change.

          However, in the event of separation there are substantial risks and unknowns, especially as the “Yes” campaign has no credible deliverable currency plan, which could result in a substantial hit to the economy in Scotland. There are also considerable costs of separation, which would impact GDP.

          Anyone who pretends otherwise is either being dishonest or really doesn’t appreciate the issues.

          • Jambo25

            Or simply looks at what evidence there is and interprets it differently from you but then, as you show in your last sentence, your back into insult mode.

            • Inverted Meniscus

              The essential point is that should Scotland vote yes it will not give it the right to impose a currency union upon the UK and there is tripartite agreement that we do not want one.

              • Jambo25

                And this has what to do with my previous posting above?

            • HJ777

              “Or simply looks at what evidence there is…”

              Precisely my point. The evidence about what would happen in the event of a “Yes” vote is incomplete and unclear. It is more uncertain. That is why there is greater risk of an economic collapse in the case of a “Yes” vote..

              You are like a stuck record seeing insults whenever anyone disagrees with you.

              Incidentally, were you never taught the difference between “your” and “you’re”?

              • Jambo25

                And you’ve never been taught the meaning of the words ‘polite’ and ‘manners’.

                • HJ777

                  That really was weak, you poor delicate little thing.

                  It doesn’t cover up the paucity of your argument you know. I have shown you to be wrong and everyone knows it, including you.

                • Michele Keighley

                  I have read some of your comments on these board, aye, and on otherswhere you spout equally stupid garbage, and the thought of you getting all missish about robust commentary is hilarious!

                • Jambo25

                  In other words you don’t agree with me. “equally stupid garbage”. Rational and intelligent.

            • Inverted Meniscus

              Having previously referred to the British PM as “filth” and endorsed the view that the English are “fascists” I do not think you are in a position to lecture anybody about insults. Neither am I for that matter but then I am not the one seeking the moral high ground from such a precarious position.

              • Jambo25

                References please.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  You are denying that you referred to David Cameron as “filth”. Nice one.

                • Jambo25

                  Supply the reference to show whether I did and if I did what context.

                • HJ777

                  You are the most consistently sniping and insulting person on this board – yet you constantly, and hypocritically, claim that that you are whiter than white and that it is others who do this, not you.

                  If you had decent arguments you would present them. You do not – hence your behaviour.

                • Jambo25

                  So you’re not answering then?

                • HJ777

                  You’re accusing me of not answering?

                  The serial non-answerer accuses me of not answering?

                  And what am I supposed not to have answered? There was no question posed.

      • Cymrugel

        Not about personalities : a one on one debate is “not about personalities”? Would you be saying that if Darling won? I think not.
        As for our economy ; Scotland’s economy is struggling. It is not a priority for Westminster which should just drop the pretence and admit that they serve a London city state.
        We have cases of malnutrition in our hospitals, 100,000 kids living in poverty and people are relying on food banks to get by.
        I think I’ll take my chances on running our own affairs thanks.

      • Cymrugel

        Indeed

    • HJ777

      When the dust settles, people will realise that Salmond’s claims were wholly incredible.

      As Darling correctly pointed out, if the NHS is such a key issue, why did Salmond not mention it in the first debate and why does his white paper mention it only once?

      As for currency, Salmond tried to treat the obvious statement that anybody can use Sterling (because it is an internationally tradeable currency) as some great revelation. To him perhaps, but not to anyone else. And as for his three plan ‘B’s (i.e. the options his own commission ruled out), words fail me…

      Here is Salmond on the currency issue:

      “I’m looking for a mandate so we can share the currency in a sensible
      union. I’m seeking a mandate to get the pound sterling so we can get
      mortgages and wages”

      “The mandate is crucial. If you send me into negotiations as First Minister, that will be the outcome”

      Oh dear.

      • Jambo25

        So once again you have greater analytical powers, in terms of economics, than a couple of Nobel Laureates?

        • HJ777

          Than people Salmond is paying to say what he wants them to say, yes.

          And where has any Nobel Laureate contradicted what I wrote above?

          • Jambo25

            So, if they disagree with you then they have been corrupted in some way by Salmond? Actually the Nobel Laureates did contradict you as they recommended a Currency Union as the best solution for a continuing relationship between an iScotland and rUK

            • HJ777

              They were paid by the “Yes” campaign.

              They did not contradict me. Where, above, did I make any comment on the desirability of a currency union? My comment was on its achievability and whether Salmond would be in a position, mandate from Scots or not, to force the rest of the UK to agree.

            • Inverted Meniscus

              Yes they did but neither said it can be imposed upon the UK and neither have explained why it would be in the ‘best interests’ of UK tax payers. The economies of both entities will inevitably diverge making a currency union unworkable. Salmond has said he wants to increase spending and envisages a different structure of taxation from the UK.

              • Jambo25

                You now have thee gift of prophesy and can see into the future on the differing paths the economies of Scotland and the rUK would take in the event of Scottish independence. I claim no such gift.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  Salmond has said he wishes to alter corporate tax rates and increase spending by “ending austerity” ergo with different fiscal and monetary policies the respective economies will diverge.

            • Michele Keighley

              It may be in the best interest of the Scots – who seem to want everything their own way; but it certainly is not in the best interest of the UK-S – and is completely impossible to implement without the consent of the voters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Their representatives have told you until they are as blue in the face as your lot are that a Currency Union is not even on the table, and yet you still seem to think that you can sit down and order things the way you want. You’re lunatics!

              Reneging on your debt responsibilities is abhorrent, and that your leader can even suggest such a thing reflects poorly on his ideas of ethical behaviour. However, should he carry through such a self-defeating policy I see no reason why the UK-S should not be entitled to withhold assets to the value of the debt,

              • Jambo25

                I don’t want a Currency Union with rUK. I’d prefer a Scottish currency and then getting into the Euro. I suspect we would get one anyway if Scotland voted Yes on the 18th September.
                As for reneging on debts. I think that would in reality depend on a bit more than the CU but the present lot at Westminster are putting themselves where they could get it as they seem to think, in their view of the world, that rUK would get the assets without having to make any or many compromises. If that puts rUK into the position of sole successor state or continuation state then it gets all the liabilities as well as the assets.
                Incidentally, in that unlikely event what assets would rUK withhold?

                • Michele Keighley

                  It appears that you want the UK Government to collect your taxes – why should they not just do so and offset that against your debt? While there are many fixed assets there are far more that are not, and they can easily be withheld, again to offset your share of the debt.

                  I wonder if you understand how we, from the outside, view your careless disregard of your accumulated debt – it is a debt that you contributed to, and that Scottish members of the UK parliament actually sat in authority over – Brown for one, and now because you appear to feel morally superior to the English, you seem to think you can renege on your responsibilities without a sign of shame. International Law, I think, will indicate that you are wrong; and certainly in the court of international opinion you will be seen to be untrustworthy and a business risk.

                  It is your choice, I have no vote, but you seem to think you can strut the world stage – I am merely pointing out to you that the world is a very large stage and we view with some severity those that renege on their responsibilities and do not pay their debts.

                • Jambo25

                  What assets would you withhold? I don’t feel morally superior to the English. I don’t think I know anyone who does.

        • Inverted Meniscus

          It is not unreasonable to be sceptical about the views of economists who have declared an interest on a particular side of an argument. Neither of the two in question here, have addressed the issue as to why it would be advantageous to UK taxpayers to underwrite, via the UK Treasury, any newly issued debt by a foreign country without any means of limitation. Also, currency unions only work where there is complete unity of fiscal and monetary policy whereas it has been declared by the SNP that their fiscal and monetary policies will diverge from those of the UK ” no more austerity” etc. No sensible person is denying the right of Scottish residents to determine their own future. Indeed, democracy is something we are all supposed to encourage and embrace. What is totally unacceptable however is the attempt to impose a currency union upon 91.5% of the current population who have had no say in the matter and for whom it would be manifestly contrary to their economic interests.

          • HJ777

            Jambo misses the point anyway, as usual,

            Nothing I wrote is contradicted by any of his ‘Nobel Laureates” anyway. None of them has asserted that a currency union can be forced on the rest of the UK against its will.

            So they don’t agree with him or Salmond.

          • Jambo25

            How do you know what the specific political views of Mirrlees, Stiglitz and others are? If they are untrustworthy then so, clearly are all those on the No side who must also obviously have an axe to grind.

            • Inverted Meniscus

              I do not know their specific views and I do not consider them untrustworthy. I do think it is reasonable to question their opinions however particularly as they have declared support for independence. Also, neither has said that a Currency Union can be imposed by Scotland upon the UK against its will. The SNP seems to think it can and threatens to renege on its share of the national debt if it does not get a CU.

  • terence patrick hewett

    Hasn’t said anything we did not know before: they can use the £ but will
    not get a currency union: which means economic control from London.
    They can have a Scottish currency and risk a run by speculators. Or
    they can join the Euro and have economic control from Frankfurt and the
    Irish know how nice that is.

    • Mark B

      Currently, Scotland can print its own notes. But after Independence (sic), the Scottish pound will not be legal tender. ie Worthless. It is that small matter, which is lost on the Scots.

      • swatnan

        The Scots Pund was always regarded with suspicion by bartenders down South of the Border anyway. I tried paing for my round of drinks in Birmingham with a Scottish Fiver and they wouldna take it.
        But there is no way that the Nabk of England can stop the Scots keeping the Pund. The Irish did for quite a considerable time.

        • Mark B

          Yes. But would they still consider themselves to be 100% independent.

          To be considered truly independent, you must be sovereign. To be sovereign, you must have control over your own currency. That is why the Euro for the EU is so central.

          An independent Scotland, using the pound, would be a Vassal State.

        • Inverted Meniscus

          Quite right, but not as part of a formal currency union.

        • Gwangi

          SCOTTISH NOTES ARE NOT LEGAL TENDER!!!
          that is why.

      • Jambo25

        Scottish notes have never been legal tender in England.

        • Mark B

          Some shops do accept them and, you can exchange them at the bank.

        • HJ777

          They have never been legal tender anywhere. They are purely promissory notes issued by Scottish banks and backed by – guess who – the Bank of England.

          What would they be worth without the BoE backing, I wonder?

          • Inverted Meniscus

            The square root of…etc etc

          • Inverted Meniscus

            He has absolutely no idea what a promissory note is or a bill of exchange etc etc etc.

    • Jambo25

      You mean the Irish who still have higher living standards, quality of life scores and lower borrowing costs than the UK? I haven’t noticed any groundswell of opinion in Ireland demanding that they leave the Euro.

      • Michael Mckeown

        Oh dear, the Irish dont even get adequate healthcare.

        • terence patrick hewett

          Don’t even mention that: a very sore point. no pun intended.

          • Jambo25

            I will give you the unevenness of health facilities in some parts of the Republic. I have friends who live not far from Letterkenny and the wife of the family made sure she came back to Scotland for the birth of her children. There had simply been too much development there, during the boom years, which somewhat overwhelmed the health and other facilities.

        • Jambo25

          And yet they have better infant mortality rates and a (very) slightly higher life expectancy than the UK

      • terence patrick hewett

        My wife is Irish and I can assure you that you really are talking crap.

        • Jambo25

          And I have numerous friends in Ireland who say differently.

          • HJ777

            Of course you do.

            • Jambo25

              You mean the kind of government debt we have in the good old UK? They certainly mentioned the very tough times they’ve had over the past few years and the high-ish rate of emigration but high emigration rates are not exactly unknown in Scotland either.

              • HJ777

                No, the proportionately much higher government debt they have in Ireland – over 120% of GDP.

                Did they not mention the much higher unemployment (one of the factors driving emigration)?

                Did they not mention the deep cuts in government spending of the type that Salmond has claimed a seceded Scotland would be free from if only it would leave the UK? I remember Salmond saying he would like to emulate Ireland.

      • Inverted Meniscus

        They borrow in euros you idiot and for much shorter terms hence if you were to make a comparison on a like for like basis taking into account exchange rate differentials you would see that their borrowing costs are actually higher. You do understand don’t you that an exchange rate reflects interest rate differentials between the two countries in question. Also, Ireland is borrowing with the ‘halo’ effect if not the direct support of the ECB.

        • Jambo25

          It still has lower borrowing costs though and it still has a healthy Balance of Payments just like ours. Oh Dear! we don’t.

          • Inverted Meniscus

            Clearly you do not understand what exchange rates are and the difference in cost when borrowing for 5 years as opposed to 30/40 years. You have to make a like for like comparison. Alternatively, you might be considering investment in either of two bonds a Swiss bond with a coupon of 3% or a Belgian bond with a coupon of 6%. Prima facie the Belgian bond looks better value but when you take into account exchange rates, the bond prices etc it may be that the overall yield on the Swiss bond makes it a preferable investment. All a bit much for an idiot like yourself who is just happy to make a false comparison based on ignorance and incorrect analysis. You might like to have a chat with a few Irish people about what they think of their standard of living.

            • Jambo25

              And no doubt you’d like to talk to a few Brits to see what they think of theirs.

              • Inverted Meniscus

                So no response regarding respective Irish and UK borrowing costs? Well done, standards of living have fallen for many people but not to the extent of those suffered by people in Ireland. I visit Dublin once a month. How often do you go there?

        • Jambo25

          You’re right; bonds are really complex things so let’s simplify things by looking at standard 10 year Bonds. If you do that and look at that left wing rag, the FT.Com Markets and Market Data you find that a standard 10 year UK Bond is providing 2.45% and an Irish 10 year Bond is providing 1.80%

          • Inverted Meniscus

            So adjust the yields for exchange rates and then do the same at the longer end of the yield curve. Assuming Iteland issues long term bonds. Get a friend to help you.

            • Jambo25

              Om standard 10 year bonds Irish interest is .65% less than those issued by the UK that’s quite a lot of money. Get a pal to help you.

              • Inverted Meniscus

                You ignorant sod they borrow in euros and we borrow in sterling and so you need to make the exchange rate adjustment. Exchange rates reflect interest rate differentials between different markets and thus to make a comparison you have to make the necessary adjustments. You cannot just deduct one from the other and make a comparison. You are just embarrassing yourself.

      • HJ777

        Clearly you have not been near the Irish Republic in recent years. I have. It’s in an economic mess.

        They have a debt of over 120% of GDP. They have an unemployment rate nearly double that of the UK. They have made drastic austerity cuts – of the type that Salmond and the “Yes” campaign assures us Scotland will avoid by leaving the UK.

        The average worker in Ireland is paid less than in the UK.

        The supposed ‘higher standard of living’ is myth. Irish GDP per head appears to be higher than that of the UK because of a quirk arising from the fact many companies have found it advantageous to base their European HQ in Ireland and to assign as much of their revenue and profit to their Irish business as they can get away with (because of low Corporation Tax in Ireland). This inflates measured GDP for Ireland without doing much for real GDP.

        • Michael Mckeown

          Salmonds plan is to also fake the Scottish economy by cutting corporation tax slightly, no doubt so he can then use dodgy GDP figures to show how great he is.

          • Jambo25

            You are aware that UK governments have been progressively cutting corporation taxes over the past few decades?

            • Michael Mckeown

              Yes, but Salmonds ‘plan’ is to not set the rate as is best for Scotland but set it 3% lower than whatever the UK sets it at so he can get his dodgy figures.

              • Jambo25

                So its OK for the UK to undercut other countries on corporation taxes but unfair for anyone else to do it to the UK?

        • Jambo25

          So you not only know more than a couple of Nobel Laureates you also know more than the CIA and the money markets. My, what a clever chap you are. I take it you also Know that the percentage of the population living below the poverty line in Ireland is not far over 5% as opposed to the UK which, I believe, is somewhere over 16%. You’ll also be aware that Ireland now has a very healthy Balance of Payments surplus as opposed to our disastrous performance which helps explain Ireland’s lower borrowing costs.

  • Michael Mckeown

    I think things will appear different in a few days, Darling is not normally a dribbling fool but tonight he performed admirably as one so perhaps he was playing to the different audience, the UK audience, and from whare I was sitting in England the people around me went ‘who is the fat bully’ and ‘does that Salmond guy not understand a mandate from Scotland would mean nothing to what would be a foreign country’ along with ‘I though the vote was to stay or go not give one man a mandate to do as he pleases’ and finally ‘8000 jobs? that would transform the North of England’.

    • wobble

      Wrong audience then …the only one that counts are the ones with the opportunity to vote !

      • Michael Mckeown

        Not really, the mood of the rest of the UK will effect the outcome and if the people are in no mood to do as they are told by Salmond then Scotland’s well and truly f….. and the people of Scotland know that full well.

        • Jambo25

          of course it will. The more hostile English opinion towards the Scots can be portrayed the higher the Yes vote

          • HJ777

            Hence the transparent attempts by Cybernats like you to provoke English opinion.

            • Jambo25

              No. I leave the generation of mutual dislike and bad feeling up to people like you.

              • HJ777

                So part of me is supposed to not like the other part, considering that I am part Scottish and part English?

                You are trying to generate division, not me – at least be honest for once.

    • Maidmarrion

      Ah Mr Mckeown, are you the same one that used to infest the Herald along with the ignorant OBE?
      When did you ever write anything other than anti Mr Salmond drivel?
      I doubt if you were honest you could say Mr Salmond bullied anyone last night but tell me did you write “Mr Darling trounced Mr Salmond ” after the last debate? Pointy fingered , bad tempered Mr Darling??
      Remember him? that failed chancellor , that house flipper – Mr Darling?
      But hey ! he’s not such a bad guy after all , ” of course Scotland can use the pound ” LOUD AND CLEAR.
      Of course Scotland knew that but it was good to hear someone who supports Tory policy say it.

      • Blindsideflanker

        Its only dim wits like yourself who confuse ‘using the pound’ with currency union.

        You can use the pound, but you ain’t getting currency union.

        • MichtyMe

          And the dimwits in the No campaign who have been relentless with their “ye cannae retain the pound”

          • Blindsideflanker

            And you can’t.

          • Inverted Meniscus

            They are not saying that at all. They are saying that you can keep on using Sterling but not as part of a currency union with the UK.

      • Colonel Mustard

        I only watched half of it, repelled by the performance of both participants, the BBC compere and especially the audience. Salmond began interrupting and heckling Darling from the first question.

        The OTT clapping and cheering was more mob than audience. If that audience was balanced between ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ voters as was peddled by the BBC then there was a degree of difference in the amount of noise each was making.

        • Blindsideflanker

          There was a middle aged grey haired lady (sitting next to red haired lady who got to ask a question) who was in pretty much all the TV shots of the audience who was almost foaming at the mouth.

          It was a nasty nationalistic display, and what ever the vote produces, and regardless of what the politicians say they want to happen, in working together, a pandora’s box has been opened.

          • Jambo25

            You mean like the violently anti Scottish dross we get on a fairly regular basis from publications such as the Spectator and Telegraph?

            • HJ777

              Not anti-Scottish.

              Pro-Scottish and pro-Union but anti-separatist attempts at deceiving Scots.

              • Jambo25

                Oh please; look at the ‘subsidy junky’, ‘anti-English’ ‘ get rid of the jocks’ etc which is common on these discussions.

                • HJ777

                  You said it was from publications like The Spectator and The Telegraph.

                  Cite examples.

            • HJ777

              You mean from ‘violently anti-Scottish’ people like Fraser Nelson, the editor of The Spectator.

              And Ian MacGregor, the editor of the Telegraph.

              Both of whom are Scottish.

              You are unintentionally and ignorantly comical.

          • Airey Belvoir

            That was no lady, that was a ScotNat!

        • Alex Creel

          I’d agree with your point about the balance of the audience. The debate is surely only of value to undecided voters so why did the BBC bring in equal numbers of Yes and No also? Maybe to turn it into a circus, some kind of popularity contest? I wondered why we don’t adopt US style debates where the audience can be turned to for questions but are asked to remain quiet the rest of the time.

          • Colonel Mustard

            The BBC are obsessed with “accessibility” and agitation. It is impossible for them to stage anything remotely rational or dispassionate when it comes to politics. BBC drama is stuffed full of politics and BBC politics is stuffed full of drama. I think it must be the left-leaning luvvies who run it, believing they have a theatrical mission that transcends public duty.

      • Jambo25

        I notice he no longer adds “West Midlands” after his name. We really should get OBE Wan on here for a good laugh.

        • Michael Mckeown

          Can you get anything right? Thats a location tag that the Spectator doesn’t ask you for. My post was clear that I’m in England.

          • Jambo25

            So? I still think OBE Wan is funnier than you.

            • Michael Mckeown

              I think he is to, well done, for once you got something right.

              • Jambo25

                I don’t think he means to be but manages it, nevertheless.

    • Magnolia

      I agree.
      I think Darling will win this one in the long term because he showed Salmond up to be a soundbite verbal bully. The effect is to make the wider audience feel sick. AD let him run and gave AS just enough rope with which to harm himself and Salmond didn’t even notice.
      This one will play out as the tortoise and the hare.

      • Michael Mckeown

        Salmond waddling out from the podium then waddling in front of the audience was nauseating.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here