Salmond Vs. Darling - The Debate

[DeeTillEhDeh]

He will answer those questions in fact I'll answer them now

Currency - Will be the same £pound as we currently use now

EU - We will be an EU member

Infrastructure - £250m

There ye go....

Currency - what terms and conditions? He won't answer.

EU - what terms and conditions? He won't answer.

Infrastructure - £250m - cloud-fucking-cuckoo-land - multiply by 10 and you still wouldn't be close.

Why does Yes keep doing this?

Leave the bullshit to BT - a wee bit more honesty and pragmatism instead if this denial would be far more effective.

I would be far more inclined to vote one way or other if either side dumped the lying b*****ds that seem to dominate their campaigns.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Well it is. Sturgeon has said plenty of times it will be the pound. There is no doubt we'll be using sterling ,for the first 5-10 years, in a currency union or not.

Sturgeon is playing on the stupidity of the electorate who don't understand the difference between "using the pound" and Currency Union.

But then the SNP have a track record of being economical with the truth. It will be like Blair's New Labour in 1997 if they win the vote - severe disappointment all round.

[Confidemus]

Currency - what terms and conditions? He won't answer.

EU - what terms and conditions? He won't answer.

Infrastructure - £250m - cloud-fucking-cuckoo-land - multiply by 10 and you still wouldn't be close.

Why does Yes keep doing this?

Leave the bullshit to BT - a wee bit more honesty and pragmatism instead if this denial would be far more effective.

I would be far more inclined to vote one way or other if either side dumped the lying b*****ds that seem to dominate their campaigns.

The hell do you mean terms and conditions? It's not a BHS storecard.

And cloud cuckoo land? Professor Patrick Dunleavy doesn't seem to think so.

Honestly mate, I'd expect more from you. And if you're basing your vote on going against the lying b*****ds, you better get ready to put an X in the Yes box.

[Colkitto]

Currency - what terms and conditions? He won't answer.

EU - what terms and conditions? He won't answer.

Infrastructure - £250m - cloud-fucking-cuckoo-land - multiply by 10 and you still wouldn't be close.

Why does Yes keep doing this?

Leave the bullshit to BT - a wee bit more honesty and pragmatism instead if this denial would be far more effective.

I would be far more inclined to vote one way or other if either side dumped the lying b*****ds that seem to dominate their campaigns.

But you're asking different questions to what the op was asking. We will be using the £pound, we will be in the EU and as mentioned Prof Dunleavy has estimated £250m for infrastructure.

Terms & conditions can only be answered when negotiations process begins.

EU - Can be answered right now if the UK pose the question to the EU.

[Confidemus]

But you're asking different questions to what the op was asking. We will be using the £pound, we will be in the EU and as mentioned Prof Dunleavy has estimated £250m for infrastructure.

Terms & conditions can only be answered when negotiations process begins.

EU - Can be answered right now if the UK pose the question to the EU.

Professor Dunleavy said £200m so if anything, £250m is high-balling it.

[renton]

It's pretty fairly impossible for Salmond to win this, I think. The press has been doing an admirable job of talking Salmond up, while the Record publish an online poll showing 91% of folk think Eck will shit all over Darling. On it's own, that means so long as Darling isn't completely trampled over, then commentators will come out saying he did better than expected and that salmond didn't get the knock out he needed (and it'll need to be a knock out as the Ipsos poll will show a huge No lead, as they always have).

[Confidemus]

Quelle surprise with the timing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28654142

[Colkitto]

It's pretty fairly impossible for Salmond to win this, I think. The press has been doing an admirable job of talking Salmond up, while the Record publish an online poll showing 91% of folk think Eck will shit all over Darling. On it's own, that means so long as Darling isn't completely trampled over, then commentators will come out saying he did better than expected and that salmond didn't get the knock out he needed (and it'll need to be a knock out as the Ipsos poll will show a huge No lead, as they always have).

Spot on. Unless there is a total knock out punch for Salmond or Darling makes a total blunder then I would agree with that scenario

[Colkitto]

Professor Dunleavy said £200m so if anything, £250m is high-balling it.

What was the Unionist estimation again? Over £1billion???

[Colkitto]

I think we should get "debate bingo" going for tonight.

Game changer

Failed to land knock out punch

Draw

Under pressure

[Mr Bairn]

Cagey

"the people of Scotland"

democratic deficit

Nippy sweeties

[welshbairn]

Spot on. Unless there is a total knock out punch for Salmond or Darling makes a total blunder then I would agree with that scenario

It would take Darling storming off the stage in tears for Salmond to be declared the winner. Then Salmond would be called a bully and unfit for Government.

[ICTChris]

This will either be one of the best events in TV history or absolutely horseshit.

Unless your TV has been stuck on Men and Motors since the days of John Logie Baird I'm doubting the former will be true.

[Double Jack D]

What was the Unionist estimation again? Over £1billion???

I'm sure the highest I've read is £2.7bn

I think it was based on copying the Westminster model of government though. That and they totally failed to appreciate that there are many facilities and systems already in place.

Professor Dunleavy has independently estimated between £200m and £250m. Absolutely no one on here has the authority to dispute this estimate.

As for the debate tonight, I don't think it is as important as tomorrows headlines will be. Unfortunately, my cynical mind thinks these are already written, see renton's post above for the jist.

Expect Salmond to win comfortably but Darling will do enough scaremongering about Currency, EU etc that the No voters can cling to as a great reason for us to remain a region of the UK.

[welshbairn]

Unless your TV has been stuck on Men and Motors since the days of John Logie Baird I'm doubting the former will be true.

It's never going to beat the peak years of Men and Motors when they were the sole broadcaster of quality porn to the nation.

[Confidemus]

It's never going to beat the peak years of Men and Motors when they were the sole broadcaster of quality porn to the nation.

That's a very loose use of the word "quality". Men and Motors was, at best, worth a hand shandy, if you were very drunk or very desperate.

I speak from personal experience.

[mozam76]

I think we should get "debate bingo" going for tonight.

Game changer

Failed to land knock out punch

Draw

Under pressure

Cagey

"the people of Scotland"

democratic deficit

Nippy sweeties

Stairheid rammy

[Uncle Psychosis]

This will either be one of the best events in TV history or absolutely horseshit.

It'll be utter horseshit.

Darling will talk a lot without saying anything at all and try and blink Salmond into submission. Salmond will do his usual and be a good speaker but not really say anything new. He may blow it by being a bit too smug, given just how crap Darling is it will be an easy trap to fall into.

Both sides will claim victory, Darling because Salmond hasn't literally wiped the floor with him and Salmond because he's a far better debater than Darling.

Meanwhile anyone who has been paying attention to the debate thus far won't actually have learned anything and those who haven't been paying attention probably won't be watching.

[bunkmedal]

Professor Dunleavy said £200m so if anything, £250m is high-balling it.

What he actually said is a £200 million immediate cost to which you'd then add a Scottish share of "disentangling costs", and "investments costs for a tax and benefits back office of perhaps as much as £900 million" which he then cuts in half (due to potential efficiency savings) and settles on a figure of around £600-650 million all in for the overall transition costs.

He also says that there's uncertainty in this so it's possible it could be more. He treats that figure as a minimum and says ultimately that "Scotland’s voters can be relatively sure that total transition costs over a decade will lie in a restricted range, from 0.4 of one per cent of GDP (£600 million), up to a maximum of 1.1 per cent (£1,500 milion)."

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/a-debate-about-scotlands-transition-costs-a-response-to-mcleans-critique/

I don't think this argument makes much difference either way - even Dunleavy's high estimate of £1.5 billion isn't exactly a reason not to vote for independence if you already believe in it - but in typical fashion we have people taking very reasonable academic analyses and misrepresenting them in some pointless attempt to try and make the numbers marginally more favourable for their agenda.

[AUFC90]

What he actually said is a £200 million immediate cost to which you'd then add a Scottish share of "disentangling costs", and "investments costs for a tax and benefits back office of perhaps as much as £900 million" which he then cuts in half (due to potential efficiency savings) and settles on a figure of around £600-650 million all in for the overall transition costs.

He also says that there's uncertainty in this so it's possible it could be more. He treats that figure as a minimum and says ultimately that "Scotland’s voters can be relatively sure that total transition costs over a decade will lie in a restricted range, from 0.4 of one per cent of GDP (£600 million), up to a maximum of 1.1 per cent (£1,500 milion)."

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/a-debate-about-scotlands-transition-costs-a-response-to-mcleans-critique/

I don't think this argument makes much difference either way - even Dunleavy's high estimate of £1.5 billion isn't exactly a reason not to vote for independence if you already believe in it - but in typical fashion we have people taking very reasonable academic analyses and misrepresenting them in some pointless attempt to try and make the numbers marginally more favourable for their agenda.

Didn't he also say that a lot of the costs after the immediate period were to do with computer systems costs ? Costs that we would have to pay anyway under the union ? I'm sure he said these costs would be comparable to the costs we would bear in a future UK anyway.