Salmond v Darling

[Beezerk]

I wonder how many people actually change their vote based on these arguments ( sorry debates )

Those who like a good sound byte?
Couldn't believe some of the reasons I got told last week for voting "Yes", to me it seemed like they were after an excuse to have a dig at the English rather than voting with their heads.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

A point everyone seems to miss is that most of the Better Together politicians are fighting to save their own jobs and their comfy lifestyles. Listening to some of them I think that is pretty high on their agenda.

 

[CMAC]

A point everyone seems to miss is that most of the Better Together politicians are fighting to save their own jobs and their comfy lifestyles. Listening to some of them I think that is pretty high on their agenda.

now you really are clutching at straws!

 

[LIG]

Is there a deadline day for all the nitty-gritty details to have been ironed out once/if the vote goes to the independence supporters? I suspect if this were a fixed point in time, like the upcoming vote, there would have been far more substance in the arguments of both sides.

On a longer term view, would an Independent Scotland be asking to be let back into the Union once the Oil runs out? Would the Union allow that to happen?


Alternatively, Scotland could become part of Canada!!! (That's very tongue in cheek!)

 

[Dodger]

89% of the unsures say Salmond triumphed last night.

The other 11% have apologised for hitting the wrong button.

Not sure his landslide will have swayed that many but sure it won't have done any harm for the YES.

 

[IanG]

Is there a deadline day for all the nitty-gritty details to have been ironed out once/if the vote goes to the independence supporters?

Hi LIG,

Nope, Alex S. claims it can be done by May 2016 but he is IMHO dreaming - it will take several years, lead to an ugly set of compromises which will leave both Scotland and rUK dissatisfied.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Thought both were poor, Salmond a bawhair less so.

 

[IanG]

I thought the BBC made a silly decision not to have the moderator standing between Salmond and Darling to mitigate the aggro or perhaps it is me being silly and they wanted a shouting match.....surely not.

 

[DCB]

Think I saw a different debate to some on here, or maybe my glasses arent tinted.

Salmond clearly (or not as the case may be) avoided answering the questions yet again and deflected not only Darlings cross examination but that of the chair.

100,000 additional children in Poverty in Scotland, Salmond is the 1st Minister yet blames the UK govt for that.

He said foodbanks are escalating- why not use the millions you've spent on this ridiculous campaign the last 2 years to do something about it....thought not.


Overall cheap point scoring by Salmond especially on Darling saying he could use the pound- Darling also said he could use the Yen, dollar euro or whatever else he wanted..........but without a stable bank behind it it cannot work, ignored of course by a man who concentrated on walking around the podium (obviously told to do it by his marketeers) rather than concentrating on answering the most basic and important questions we all need to hear.

+1

We know politicians are not keen on giving a straight answer, but for something as important as this, we deserve to be given straight answers instead of the spin or outright tripe we are currently being given.

As for the studio audience, they were out of order with some of their personal attacks on Darling IMO. Another of the classic lines, "we have a government we didn't vote for" funnily enough, some of us have two governments we didn't vote for

Still, only three weeks to go and it'll all be over

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I thought it was good to see a bit of passion in British politics.
They certainly engaged the audience and I would imagine those sitting at home.

How often have you heard a politician being jeered or cheered by a TV audience lately?

Darling reading [poorly] his prepared closing statement was a big mistake

Certainly makes a change from the bland soundbites you hear from career politicians we seem to get now.

 

[lex!]

I tried to watch it but found it extremely dull. Eck went back to his rabble rousing, whilst avoiding answering the questions, and Darling was stuttering throughout most of it, a man who presided plunging the union into debt, failing to promote its benefits. The one interesting bit was when the lady question Darling's devtion to the NHS whilst she calimed he was milking private health benefits. I waited for him to answer but he didn't. I don't have a vote now, but think the NO's will have it on the day. There's too much uncertainty about the currency, and the public spending spree that Eck wants to unleash, and he's very unpopular with women voters up there.

 

[Jimaroid]

I'm an undecided voter, my heart says yes but my head says no. Salmond performed better last night but neither person did anything to change my stance, for shame, and both came across as floundering on key issues. I'm still none the wiser on the benefits of either case, I just want to know, relatively clearly, what my two year old daughter can grow up to expect in education, health and finance. I wouldn't have thought it would be hard to make that case and it'd probably help both sides in the debate greatly.

 

[Conman85]

At the moment we don't live in the United Kingdom, it's United London, let's not be kidded! Once the privatisation of the NHS hits down south it won't be long in putting the squeeze up here, even if it remains public. That and the pensions are where the future generations are going to be hit hardest. I'm not if sure Independence is the answer, but i'm willing to give it a bash, just so we have control of our own future and our decisions aren't being made by folk with London's interests at heart. Scotland has given so much to the world surely things can only get better.....................que Take That

 

[IanG]

I just want to know, relatively clearly, what my two year old daughter can grow up to expect in education, health and finance.

I think would all like to have some certainty about that before casting our vote, but I think it is unrealistic to expect any current politician to be able to provide that degree of crystal-ball gazing. What can they clearly say about whether there will be Uni tuition fees when your daughter leaves school? (to pick one example). To pick another, what can the Yes campaign say with certainty about EU membership before negotiations with Brussels begin?

I'm afraid we are being asked to vote without answers to these crucial issues because answers cannot be given ahead of the negotiations which cannot take place ahead of the referendum.

In fact we have no idea who the governments of Scotland or rUK will be when negotiations are in full swing in 2016 - maybe labour administrations in both governments!

With that in mind my view is that we can only vote on who we wish to allow to govern us long term, the rabble in Westminster or the shower in Holyrood. This should not be a vote for or against Salmond or Cameron, who'll soon enough be yesterday's men, but one about Scotland's long term place within these islands.

I don't find it a straightforward choice at all, but I'm currently in the No camp, primarily as on balance the scale of being in a larger country and the lack of upheaval outweighs the extra local flexibility/democracy independence would bring.

Ian

 

[CMAC]

At the moment we don't live in the United Kingdom, it's United London, let's not be kidded! Once the privatisation of the NHS hits down south it won't be long in putting the squeeze up here, even if it remains public. That and the pensions are where the future generations are going to be hit hardest. I'm not sure Independence is the answer, but i'm willing to give it a bash, just so we have control of our own future and our decisions aren't being made by folk with London's interests at heart.

well thats a sound way to take the country forward for our children! You've just said Pensions are where future generations (our children) will be hit hardest and you are spot on, but you still think its worth giving it a bash!

There is no turning back when Salmond is proven to be wrong and there is a financial and social disaster within Scotland, but we'll definitley have control of our own future as no-one else will want anything to do with it.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

At the moment we don't live in the United Kingdom, it's United London, let's not be kidded! Once the privatisation of the NHS hits down south it won't be long in putting the squeeze up here, even if it remains public. That and the pensions are where the future generations are going to be hit hardest. I'm not if sure Independence is the answer, but i'm willing to give it a bash, just so we have control of our own future and our decisions aren't being made by folk with London's interests at heart. Scotland has given so much to the world surely things can only get better.....................que Take That

If pensions are the biggest issue, why would you want to remove yourself from a much larger pool of workers, to help with the pension issue down the line?

 

[Conman85]

well thats a sound way to take the country forward for our children! You've just said Pensions are where future generations (our children) will be hit hardest and you are spot on, but you still think its worth giving it a bash!

There is no turning back when Salmond is proven to be wrong and there is a financial and social disaster within Scotland, but we'll definitley have control of our own future as no-one else will want anything to do with it.

And you can say with 100% certainty Salmond is going to be wrong?

 

[CMAC]

And you can say with 100% certainty Salmond is going to be wrong?

Based on what he has said so far and in his white paper it has been proven that it cannot work, which is why so many are dissapointed in Salmond's cheap points scoring as opposed to answering the question- WHY WON'T HE? why will he only say how he thinks it might work when we are past the point of no return?

It beggars belief that anyone would accept that for their own future.

 

[Conman85]

If pensions are the biggest issue, why would you want to remove yourself from a much larger pool of workers, to help with the pension issue down the line?

Self sustainability, I think it may take a couple of years to get on our feet, but I think we would thrive on our own! A boom up here would mean a larger pool with a lower population.

We wouldnt be rushing to stand shoulder to shoulder with America on every decision. The money we use fighting wars, giving aid, these things wouldn't be as high on our agenda. We would look after ourselves at first, until we grew, when we are sustainable i'd like to see a Belgian formula in place where we are loaning to other countries.

 

[Conman85]

Based on what he has said so far and in his white paper it has been proven that it cannot work, which is why so many are dissapointed in Salmond's cheap points scoring as opposed to answering the question- WHY WON'T HE? why will he only say how he thinks it might work when we are past the point of no return?

It beggars belief that anyone would accept that for their own future.

So really you are basing your decision on Alex Salmond and a white paper that has been manipulated more times than play do?

Look at the bigger picture, I don't like Salmond, but im not voting for him............im voting for the future!