A win for Better Together

 

Like many interested people in England I was unable to see the tv debate live last night between Mr Salmond and Mr Darling. From the accounts and from the only poll so far conducted post debate, it appears that Mr Darling was ahead of Mr Salmond by the same margin as the No campaign leads the Yes campaign.

That implies that most Scots have made up their minds, that No is comfortably ahead, and the debate did not make a difference in favour of independence. I am sticking to my view that Scotland will vote to stay in. Of course there could be some drama in the last month of the campaign that changes things, but that does not look very likely at the moment.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

57 Comments

  1. oldtimer
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    Allegedly it should have been possible to watch it live over the internet via a downloaded STV player. My attempt to register and download the player came to nought, presumably because of system overload. The failure to make the debate more widely available was wrong – but unsurprising given the way the rest of the UK is either ignored or taken for granted by the SNP.

    Reply The system did not allow me to watch

    • Mark B
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply

      That’s probably because you had an English IP Address. You know what these NATS are like ;)

    • oldtimer
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

      Finally got to watch it on BBC Parliament channel. Not very informative or edifying except that Salmond has no Plan B for currency, nor how to keep Scottish universities competitive (if free at £3k pa vs UK paid for via loans at £9k pa), or to pay for state pensions (some in the audience naively thought there was a fund for this until Darling disabused them of the idea).

      On this evidence, if I was Scottish and a resident of Scotland, I would vote No. Being British and resident in England I would happily be free of the whingeing, whining Alec Salmond if Scotland voted Yes. And I say No to currency union.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 7, 2014 at 5:40 am | Permalink

        To me it seemed poor in both structure and content, but maybe I have a rather jaundiced view after all these years of argument.

    • sjb
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think the SNP decided to limit the broadcast’s reach, oldtimer.

      Despite Darling being acclaimed as the winner, I thought it was interesting that the ICM post-debate poll [1] has the ‘Yes’ vote at 45%; ‘No’ at 55%. This excludes the don’t knows, the cohort that the ‘Yes’ vote need to win over. So what did they think about the debate?

      40% thought Salmond won the debate compared to just 14% for Darling. Salmond romped home with the “more appealing personality”; 64% v 15%. But his narrowed on who had the “better arguments”: 39% v 30%.

      [1] http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/ScotDebate_Aug2014.pdf

  2. Lifelogic
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    I certainly hope we stay together and both escape the EU yoke together. But alas it seems we will both have to suffer another five years of high tax, green crap, pro EU incompetent socialism under either serial ratter Cameron or far more likely under the even worse Miliband. What a dire prospect for everyone.

  3. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    Much of the debate it appears was taken up discussing use of sterling, defaulting on debt, oil, defence and membership of the EU.

    I can not comprehend how a people can vote for or against outcomes still to be negotiated. The terms of dissolution should be agreed already and form part of the debate. If Salmond and his band of empire builders genuinely wished for separation they would be dealing in certainty not supposition.

    This whole exercise is to extract more powers and cash from the rest of the UK which is detrimental to 90% of the population and continues government by pandering to vocal minorities. This appears to be Conservative policy these days.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 7:12 am | Permalink

      It certainly looks that way. Scotland (and indeed the UK) need new taxes and more government like a hole in the head.

    • alan jutson,
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 7:38 am | Permalink

      NS

      Agree.

      Indeed Mr Salmond has already won, because all three political party’s have pledged Scotland more powers if the vote is no.

      So heads he wins, tails we lose.

      Another example of crass negotiation skills by our so called rulers.

      Cameron thinks he will get more concessions from the EU after the next election (if he wins), dream on, they are not that stupid. !

      What an absolutely hopeless bunch of leaders we have in all three main line Party’s, not a single one had a meaningful job outside of politics.

      • Posted August 6, 2014 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

        Interesting, that pledge by all THREE (?) party leaders to allow Scotland to set its own income tax. They didn’t consult me on that, nor did they consult UKIP, which enjoys double the support that the LibDems have.

        I’m beginning to hope that Scotland votes ‘Yes’ and that a Eurosceptic Putsch in the Conservative Party will see Scotland kicked out of the Union before May 2015.

        I am Glasgow born but I don’t get a vote in Scotland because I don’t live there, and I don’t get a vote on the matter in England because David Cameron wrongly presumes to know what I think.

        • Narrow Shoulders
          Posted August 7, 2014 at 7:02 am | Permalink

          Interestingly Salmond was still hawking the no currency share – no liabilty/ debt share position yesterday. Following this childish negotiating positon he and his ilk will not wish to use any of the assests that that debt has paid for so they will need a new Parliament building, new civil service offices and their roads, owned by rUK will be operated on a toll basis. As Mr Darling pointed out rUK will also have no liability to pay ongoing Scotish civil service or national pensions.

          Careful what you wish for nationalists

  4. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    I am having trouble accessing much at present from my home. I am disallowed most things.
    We saw the BBC clips this am and Mr Salmond ta;ked about financial viability wheres Alex Salmond talked binaly about the ‘people’ . these were only clips though. There will be much talk over the next month.
    Perhaps we ought to chat about media censorship and control by remote access.

    • margaret brandreth-j
      Posted August 7, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

      OMG ; Banal

  5. Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Of course Scotland will vote to stay in especially as all three parties are falling over themselves to offer whatever it takes for them to do so. It’s win win for Scotland, independent in all but name without having to worry about where the money comes from for their socialist utopia. Meanwhile all three parties including the one which owes their very existence to England will still continue to ignore England and the democratic deficit which exists.

    Hopefully UKIP will finally come down off the fence and commit to an English Parliament which will see their vote share go up massively, as it would the Tories if they could get past their anti-Englishness. The Tories in their contempt for England have lost the right to be called the English Party and hopefully next year’s general election results will reflect that.

    Reply UKIP is a party of the Union, as its name tells us very clearly. The English Democrats are the party of a new English Parliament.

    • Posted August 6, 2014 at 9:27 am | Permalink

      Reply to reply.

      UKIP are indeed a party for the union and just like the Tories they rely on England for the bulk of their support but unlike the Tories they can see the status quo is both unsustainable and unfair to England. Are you suggesting John it is not possible to be both a Unionist and support the idea of an English Parliament? If that is the case you obviously do not support a Scottish Parliament either so why is your leader bending over backwards to offer Scotland more powers?

      Unlike the Tories, UKIP have at least proposed a solution to the English Question, admittedly they have gone very quiet on the subject lately and will only get my vote if & when they commit themselves to an English Parliament as has been proposed in the past because the only way to keep this so called union together is for an English Parliament within a federal structure. To continue to ignore the English Question and the rotten deal England gets as your colleagues continue to do will be what finally breaks up their precious union, nothing else.

      Whichever party comes down off the fence and and commits to a fairer solution for England will be a big vote winner for them. Sadly it doesn’t look like that party is likely to be the Conservative party despite the fact that just like UKIP, they could not exist without England.

    • Iain Moore
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 11:36 am | Permalink

      Yes I cannot quite understand UKIP on this. They need to keep themselves in the headlines, and they need to develop policies away from the EU, and in a policy area the British establishment have vacated. English devolution would be just that policy. Yet having had policies on this, an English Parliament, they have disappeared. Odd.

      As to John Redwoods reply. If there is to be a lasting ‘Union’ then it must be a Union based of equality. Trying to cobble together a Union based on constitutional bribes to the Scots, and discrimination to the English has no future.

      If there is to be a lasting Union, then whether the British establishment like it or not , it has to be a federated Union. The Union in UKIP shouldn’t necessarily have to mean the dead Union, just because the British establishment can’t bring themselves to recognise the whiff of its decomposition doesn’t me the rest of us can’t.

      • Mark B
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

        ” . . . they need to develop policies . . . ”

        Quite ! But to be fair, so do all the other political parties and, they need to keep to their promises, don’t they, Mr. Redwood MP sir ?

  6. Iain Moore
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    I cannot understand how this debate was not made available to be seen in the rest of the country. It’s not as if the outcome of the referendum doesn’t effect us.

    What do we have a public service broadcaster for?

    The BBC’s response was really odd, not only did they not make any channels available to broadcast the debate ( what the hell is the Parliament channel for?) but their selection of news stories to head the 10 O’clock news was also odd. What was it ? Third after the daily news on Gaza (not new news) and Warsi , which was a Muslim throwing her toys out of her pram. What was going on? Were we seeing some corporate sulk with the BBC, who found it beneath them to rely a debate that another channel got .

    • Martin
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

      Ever heard of Copyright Law? STV is a private company! (Nothing to do with the BBC, SNP or any government).

  7. They Work For Us
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    A member of the public in Scotland, after the debate said it all

    “We will never get the kind of government we want in Westminster without Scottish Independence”

    The English fpeel the same. “Better off together” means we are saddled with Scottish MPs, too many of them on a pro rata population basis, that ensures Labour can get the majority to govern in England without majority English approval.

    This issue has to be properly addressed.

  8. Andrew
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    The recording will be shown on the BBC Parliament channel tonight.

  9. Richard1
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    Thank Goodness it looks like the majority in Scotland have the good sense to reject the Nationalists’ unpleasant and divisive message. I also think Scottish people recognize its one thing to vote in big state socialists when they are electing a glorified local authority which gets 90% of its funding from the UK govt, but quite another if they actually had to survive as an independent economy with such people in power.

    • Mark B
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

      And pay for it themselves.

  10. rick hamilton
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    I cannot believe that a debate about the possible breakup of our country should have been regarded by the BBC as less interesting to the majority – English – viewers than the usual light entertainment served up every day.

    It was bad enough that Ireland was divided almost a century ago and that an amicable home rule arrangement could not be found to keep the British Isles together. Now it is possible that the island of Great Britain might be divided too. That seems to me a far more important matter to engage our attention than what is going on in Gaza, Ukraine or anywhere else.

    Maybe the BBC delusion that the rest of the world hangs on every word it utters is something to do with this. The UK has less than 1% of the population of the globe and we should not lightly accept a reduction of that by losing the Scots who are after all, family and not just neighbours, allies or trading partners.

    • Martin
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

      Nothing to do with the BBC. STV is a commercial company part of the ITV network. If ITV decline to network the problem that is their decision.

    • Stephen Berry
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

      Ireland was divided after a civil war. In my opinion, an amicable Home Rule arrangement would have been found if Britain had not entered that stupid war in 1914. The conscription crisis of 1918 galvanised support for an independent Ireland with the result that Sinn Fein won and the Irish constitutional parties lost. Scottish Nationalism always has been constitutional, so we need to be careful in our comparisons here.

      One aspect of the Scottish Independence debate rarely covered is the strategic significance of Scotland for England. When Krushchev handed over the Crimea to the Ukraine in 1954, he could scarcely have envisaged the break up of the Soviet Union, an anti-Russian government in Kiev and the possibility that the Russian naval base at Sevastopol would fall into NATO hands. Isn’t it worthwhile putting up with a little hassle from Scottish Nationalists, Devo Max, Scottish Labour MPs and the rest of it to ensure that England avoids the possibility of looking down the barrel of this particular gun fifty years from now?

      • bluedog
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

        The People’s William, EW Gladstone, had it right when he first proposed Irish Home Rule in 1885. He was defeated by Tory backwoods peers who were afraid that home rule would threaten their estates, and they were right in that regard, but not on the wider view. It is interesting to consider that if Irish Home Rule were to have been granted, quite possibly Scottish home rule would have followed as mooted, and we wouldn’t be where we are today.

        It is worth looking at the concessions so far made to Scotland against the comparison of a commonwealth federation such as Australia. Scotland has already been conceded far greater powers than an Australian state, with its own designated marine exclusive economic zone patrolled by its own ‘navy’. The German and Spanish federations would give other useful examples of the powers ceded by the federal government to the states.

        A federal constitutional structure is the only way ahead for the UK if the Scots vote to stay, and one hopes they will do so. But if Scotland does stay and if the UK does federate, a Scottish state would have to accept some diminution of its current powers, based on available precedents.

        Finally, your comments about the strategic importance of Scotland to the UK, and indeed Ireland, are absolutely right. It is remarkable that there has been so little articulation of this point.

  11. ian wragg
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    Of course the BBC is against Scottish independence. The socialist rump would be removed and England or the remaining UK could be ruled by a centre right conservative (after ditching CMD) government to the advantage of England.
    The Scots presentational bias could be removed together with some of the over represented ethnics and RUK could be recognisable as 90+% white English . Now theres a challenge.

  12. Old Albion
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    It’s also my view that Scotland will vote ‘no’ It’s the result Salmond truly wants. He gets Devo max as a consolation prize, which will be independance in all but name. With the safety net of the Bank of England to bail him out when it all goes wrong.
    It’s also my view that the Lib/Lab/Con will continue to ignore the existence of England.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      By definition under “Devo max” Scotland wouldn’t be independent in all but name, any more than New South Wales is independent of Australia in all but name or Alberta is independent of Canada in all but name or South Carolina is independent of the USA in all but name. Other countries manage to live with federal structures allowing states or provinces large measures of independent decision making on many domestic areas but with control over crucial areas such as foreign policy and defence and security reserved to the federation. The only obstacle in the way of reconstituting the United Kingdom on a proper federal basis is the obstinate refusal of the three old political parties to accept that the English deserve to have their own devolved parliament for the whole of England just as much as the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish deserve to have their devolved assemblies, and the solution lies in the hands of voters in England.

      • Mark B
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

        Exactly !! And I agree with you 100%.

  13. James Matthews
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    As others have observed, thanks (mostly) to Cameron’s propensity for appeasement this is a vote in which heads means Salmond wins and tails means the English lose. If there is a no vote more powers will led to demands for yet more powers and eventually independence for Scotland. Cameron is just postponing the inevitable so that it doesn’t happen on his watch. Better for all of us if we just got on with it now.

    • Robert Christopher
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

      Any breakup would be less likely if E,W,S & NI had the same, or very similar, relationships with the UK.

  14. Leslie Singleton
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    It is scarcely credible, with all, or maybe mostly all (I dunno)), polls having long shown that the Scots want to stay, and especially after last night’s debate, that the Referendum is going ahead at all. What might be a good idea is a Referendum on whether to have a Referendum. Am I right in thinking that if 51% of those voting vote to leave that is a done deal? What if the Turnout is very low, does that make sense??

  15. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Just checked my FreeSat Channel List. More than 560 channels (2168 data services) and STV not there. Don’t get Freeview region Scotland so have to rely on awful Virginmedia and a bad piece of iPlayer type software.

    So here we are in the modern world (?) with most channels that I certainly don’t want and a UK break up debate is largely absent? I really did not want to listen to wee eck anyway.

    Perhaps I should have phoned an m8 in Glasgow and got him to leave his phone off hook next to his TV….Nah!

  16. Posted August 6, 2014 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    I expect the BBC didn’t show the debate in England because a) it genuinely won’t really effect us b) barely anyone in England would watch it and c) the referendum’s a lock for “No” anyway.

    D’you know, Rt. Hon. member for Wokingham, as far as I can tell you never even got a Spitting Image puppet? And you were almost Prime Minister! Apart from the fact that absolutely no-one outside of the swivel-eyed far-right fringes wanted you to be, of course.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

      Mask–a) True, but it might affect us; b) Hardly, given the STV Player crash (not caused by Scots, who could and did watch on STV itself); c) I hope you turn out to be right but I dunno about a lock; and re John) Your point is hard to gauge

  17. ian
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    Mr salmood all ready won a lot more money for the soctish people and his place as head of soctland for as long as he wants. The fools who put lots money for the yes campaign were always going to win.

  18. Martin
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    Perhaps some on here should stick to the facts about the broadcast rather than letting their prejudices shine through.

    1) The coverage was done by a commercial company STV. (Nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC, SKY or the SNP). If Mr Salmond and Mr Darling decide to do a program with STV that’s STV’s good fortune (or otherwise).

    2) ITV declined to network the program elsewhere in the UK. ITV is a commercial company too.

    3) All broadcasters have to respect the law of copyright (yes there are exemptions about short highlights etc) but no broadcaster can relay a program without the permission of the rights holder.

    4) Re Satellite reception – for some reason ITV companies are very restrictive about out of area viewing. Again they are commercial companies. Web site http://www.a516digital.com/2013/09/regional-itvstvutv-services-manual.html may help but is for the technically able.

    Note broadcasting remains a reserved matter for Westminster.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

      Martin–Thank you–Very informative, but surely the BBC asked to be involved? If not, that would be hard to understand. In any event, a pox on these “Player” online thinggies, which I can never get to work anyway. Is it all to do with Salmond not wanting a connexion to being British (BC)??

  19. BobE
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Its on the Parliament channel tonight at 7pm-9pm as a repeat.
    It should have been on BBC2 live !! heads should roll.

  20. BobE
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    My problem would be extracting the ladies of the house away from the new “Great British Bake Off” that starts at 8pm. When I mention the debate they all just roll there eyes. :-(

  21. BobE
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Isnt it time to vote Boris in as the next leader. He stands a chance of winning at least. He even sounds Eurosceptic.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

      BobE–Anyody but Cameron

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

      I believe he would have to get back into the Commons before he could become the Tory party leader. He could have stood in Newark, but he chickened out.

    • Longinus
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      “He even sounds Eurosceptic.”

      But isn’t, much like Cameron.

    • cosmic
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

      He sounds all sorts of things, from time to time and as occasion demands.

  22. The Prangwizard
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    If as seems likely they will vote to stay, how many more powers will be devolved, and when will the Barnett Formula be scrapped? Tax raising powers are being promised and if any are granted this must done. It is in the Chancellor’s power to end it at now, at any time, it is in his gift.

    There’s no doubt in my mind however that Unionists will continue to prostrate themselves to Scottish demands and sell England out at every turn. England is not safe in their hands.

  23. Applemask
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Martin, I forgot the other reason the BBC didn’t show it: it was indeed on ITV. Well, STV. It was ITV’s prerogative to network it. The best the BBC can do is repeat it, and with the best will in the world it ain’t prime time material, so it’s on BBC Parliament.

  24. nigel
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    I fear that the damage has already been done, ever since Gordon Brown decided that Scotland should have its own parliament. A £40 million parliament building turned out to cost £400 million, and the whole Scottish Government is now costing the UK taxpayer millions more per year. The referendum campaign has set Scot against Scot and I am sorry to say that as an Englishman I can’t help feeling resentment towards Scotland (I know that I should not, and I have many Scottish friends). Now we hear that Scotland is to be given the right to raise its own taxes etc. with no mention of sorting out the problem of Scottish MP’s who sit in the UK Parliament and vote on our taxes etc. Maybe it would be better if they voted yes.

  25. Posted August 6, 2014 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Like everyone else , I was not able to watch the debate ; from the clips I saw afterwards it appeared to be a bad tempered occasion . Earlier I did watch the programme of the background of the community in Aberdeen over the period of the locality pre and post oil . What was obvious to me was the fact that the rigs were spread over a wide area of the North Sea embracing as much of Northern England as it did of Scotland , therefore , claiming the oil to be Scottish was a fallacy . The other stand out feature of this programme was the cataclysmic decline of the Scottish fishing industry and the extent to which the particular community highlighted depended on it and only reluctantly moved to “oil” afterwards as a necessity . The finger of blame was rightly pointed to the EU edict restricting quotas . I would be interested to know if mention of EU intervention was referred to in the debate .

  26. Monty
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    I watched the proceedings and the follow-up program on STV, by virtue of a technical wheeze. It struck me that it would have been better with a prior, non-partisan briefing from someone well versed in the concept of Authorities with Jurisdiction, in the EU, NATO, the UK. For example the accession of an independant Scotland into the Council of Europe, the EU, and ultimately the Eurozone could have been explored, in light of the conditions that would be placed on Scotland. I suspect that alone would have answered many of the questions, by highlighting areas about which Scotland would have no choice in the matter. (One example would be the requirement for any new entrant to show three to five years of compliance with European Central Bank specifications, to gain admission to the Euro, in itself a requirement for all new EU accession candidates. Scotland could never do that with a currency controlled by a foreign government.)

    It would have been much better had the debate been conducted in the light of such information. The public would then understand that not only would they not get a currency union with the UK, they shouldn’t want one. What is more, the effects of a period of currency independence would include benefits as well as disadvantages. They should be explored and set out before the public, who are being invited to vote from a position of blind guesswork.

    My main apprehension is if they vote No. That will result in an even more adverse deal for England, and all it will buy us is a few years until the next referendum. etc ed

  27. Max Dunbar
    Posted August 7, 2014 at 12:37 am | Permalink

    As long as the Scottish Parliament exists there will be no peace in these islands.

    We already have de-facto ‘independence’, which will be reinforced after a possibly successful NO vote by the granting of further important powers to the assembly in Edinburgh. This has already set Scot against Scot and re-awoken ancient enmities in moderate England. Surely the example of Ireland is clear to see. Partition of mainland Britain has been encouraged by the Labour Party and exploited eagerly by the hard core English-haters who have always provided an unpleasant undercurrent of poison here. We cannot have two heads on the same body.
    Two socialists squabbling with each other on TV over a piece of territory like a pair of vultures, each equally responsible for the disaster that this has brought upon our nation. A ‘win for Better Together’? Yes Dr Redwood, I’m glad to hear that you are ‘interested’.

  28. Peter Davies
    Posted August 7, 2014 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    I was in Scotland at the time so was able to see it live on STV – Given the fact it affects the whole union I cannot understand why it was not shown live across the whole UK live.

    As with other similar debates, nothing new was said. I must say Mr Darling put his point across about the risks of using other nations currencies rather well – given the fact I think the debates were for the “undecided” audience who may not understand too much about politics/economics I think it was quite effective.

    Reading between the lines I don’t think the SNP truly wants full independence.

    Hanging off the pound and using the BOE as lender of last resort plus staying in the EU means they do not have the confidence in my view to truly go it alone. They cite Norway conveniently forgetting that she has had the sense to stay out of the EU. I think their real “plan B” is devo max though no one from the SNP will ever bring themselves to say it.

    I agree with comments above that there needs to be a truly federated settlement across the UK – the continuation of politicians voting on devolved matters that don’t affect their own constituents must stop now which should be easy enough to do by coordinating business across all parliaments and assemblies.

  29. Atlas
    Posted August 7, 2014 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    A hat-tip to those who mentioned the debate was to be broadcast on the BBC’s Parliament channel.

    I thought Salmond did better than some claimed. Certainly if Darling is correct to push concerning the currency then the other side is correct to push over what exactly the extra devolved powers will be that the Westminster leaders have ‘promised’.

    The Scots have had false promises once already in 1979.

  30. Posted August 7, 2014 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Two little fishes were swimming freely in their large oblong glass tank.
    Busily talking to each other and in their subject, was equally, quite frank.
    “Oh, how I want a smaller “round” bowl, without corners would be ideal”
    “So much more ‘intimate’ and ‘smoother’ would be far better for us, I feel.”
    “Round and round forever we would be free to see all around”
    “No more ‘corners’ to distract us, nor to those that we were once so bound.”
    “We need ‘umans money to feed us, the like we have always had,”
    “I’m sure they will support us and for that of course we’ll be extremely glad”.

    Yet to swim in foreign waters, to ‘visit’ many people in foreign lands,
    Though the EU say it is doubtful that ‘we small fish’ figure in THEIR plans.
    Though one Salmon once swam to Chicago, of that we know for sure.
    Though sadly, the Sturgeon was left behind answering questions, as before.
    So large by now had the Salmon grown, a TV Interview by Andrew Marr was given,
    Yet not all of it went smoothly, for by much “Hot Air” it was surely driven.
    Yet it still seems “fishy” to me, to reject their well-known original tank,
    To swim with tiddler’s and eels and for that to the EU we have to THANK!

  31. Terry
    Posted August 7, 2014 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    I watched the video recording and thought how badly the debate was chaired.

    It sounded too much like BBC’s QT for my liking but with a Scottish Dimbleby i/c. Socialist have the floor on QT and are rarely interrupted. However, non-socialists are constantly halted.
    In the Scottish debate, it was every man for himself! Well, they were both socialists!!

    I wish that ALL such debates (including (BBC QT AND PMQs) would be run as a Court room and most certainly not as a shouting match.
    That is most unprofessional and down right crass.
    I actually admired Arthur Scargill for his debating skills. Not once did I see him interrupt or over-talk the speaker. Similarly Tony Benn.
    Although I did not accept their policies they were consistent and in the case of TB he stood up for democracy against the EU. Good on yer Tone!!
    Democracy dictates that everyone be heard! Then we decide. Too bad in did not happen here.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
    Published and promoted by Thomas Puddy for John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page