Salmond vs Darling: Round 2 (25th Aug)

[ayrmad]

What would you define as a "good idea" then? Threatening to damage your neighbour's new economy out of nothing more than petty spite?

And all this "world player" malarkey - I'd FAR rather Scotland was a small, peaceful country, one whose inhabitants are content and kept the f**k out of international skirmishes.

As would I.

[AUFC90]

^{Everyone outside the yes camp is saying no CU - a member of the yes camp has said no CU is 'entirely possible'. No CU = no central bank - how does that impact on our huge financial sector and even folk with savings in Scottish banks - will they keep it in those banks or play save and move to an account with a safety blanket under the BoE.}

Which banks would we have to move our money out of ? HBOS owned by Lloyds or RBS owned by the UK gov ?

[~~~]

rUK isn't having a referendum. They require no Plan A or B on anything. They aren't seceding from Scotland.

And they have also said that iScotland will get a fair share of assets too. Neither assets nor liabilities can be specified until the point of separation would be known.

You seriously daft enough to believe the UK Government, MOD etc,, don't have a contingency plan if it is a yes vote?

It's impossible to take you serious.

[H_B]

What would you define as a "good idea" then?

I've already defined it above. Ask nicely.

Or institute your own currency, which is what we should be doing.

[Tonsilitis]

The best long term option would be to start our own currency but as we all know this is a VERY expensive option to set up.

You're right though....we could make a "go of it" with a currency union but why separating from the Worlds 4th largest economy and a major player in World Politics is best for the people of Scotland I have no idea.

Why separate

1) The fourth largest economy is one of the most unequal on the planet

2) It is largely based on the city of London and the casino bankers. As a result every economic policy is aimed at London regardless of its impact elsewhere. Elsewhere for this purpose includes England North of Watford.

3) The recovery is to a large extent based on yet another housing bubble.

4) In the fourth largest economy Scotland has record numbers of people living in poverty and foodbanks springing up all over the place.

As for being a major player in world politics, the main product of that seems to be that we get involved in every war going at a cost of billions. If you add it up over the last 20 years, its what Scotland's oil has paid for! Me, I would far rather have the international standing of Denmark or Norway or Panama for that matter.

Oh and if you are interested, Panama is used in derogatory tones about what would happen if we are forced down the Sterlingisation route. Its so bad that

1) It is the fastest growing economy in Latin America with as near as makes no difference, full employment

2) It is regarded as a stable environment in which to do business

3) Its borrowing is 35% of GDP and falling (compared to around 100% in the UK)

4) They have had 5% growth in the last few years and expect that to grow to to 8/9% by 2016

5) They have found around 900 million barrels of oil in the Darien region and guess what? Everyone sees that as an asset instead of a burden!

[H_B]

Darling provided no vision a future Scotland within the UK. Neither his opening or closing speech was inspiring or positive

I think this is fair comment. It's one of the downsides of Darling - he isn't inspiring or at all engaging as a speaker.

[vikingTON]

Amusing to read the Herald's report of the debate, to find Blair McDougall refusing to deal with Darling's debate drubbing and talking about... yep you guessed it!

The concept of flogging a dead horse - and flogged fully four weeks before the majority of voters decide - is apparently lost on them. It's rapidly losing any purchase in the discussion, which last night clearly outlined.

'Plan B' for BitterTogether required IMO.

[H_B]

You seriously daft enough to believe the UK Government, MOD etc,, don't have a contingency plan if it is a yes vote?

It's impossible to take you serious.

If only I hadn't said... exactly the opposite.

Stick to posting screen grabs from Twitter.

[H_B]

2) It is largely based on the city of London and the casino bankers. As a result every economic policy is aimed at London regardless of its impact elsewhere.

See if this is true, how has Scotland managed to be the economic success it is?

[Blaven]

fs man stop trying to be so bitter for 10 seconds and have a laugh now and then christ sake, you never know you might enjoy it.

Hahahahaha priceless.

[orlandoblue]

did you miss the debate??? He said this last night

At what point? I think you're making this up.

[~~~]

Darling got stuck on the trident question.

Saying he doesn't want it, then telling us why it's vital to jobs and the local economy, and moving it "just over" the border isn't the answer.

Salmond missed a trick with that one, trident isn't a question just about jobs, it's a moral one and he could at least have asked him if he thought it was right to store these weapons within 40 miles of our largest city.

[Mark Connolly]

Part of the problem for Yes, and why it's been a total nightmare topic for them, is that they've been forced to row back to this position.

Remember previously they stated, incredibly arrogantly, that there would be a currency union. Note, not that they would seek to negotiate that if it was something rUK would accede to but that there WOULD be one. Anything else was just ridiculous, and rUK would be stupid not to agree to it.

Now, after being completely owned on that, they've been forced to adopt a much more conciliatory position. One they should have adopted from the start.

What the SG should have been doing is saying "We accept it's the sovereign right of rUK to determine whether they wish to enter into a CU with us, but we'll certainly be making the case why this is best for both parties, and hopefully agreement can be reached on this. "

Imagine a politician being incredibly arrogant and making statements they can't necessarily back up!

I'd agree that the current position would have been a better opening.

On the flip side though, should Osborne, etc have been more conciliatory? "We accept the Scots may want to discuss it as part of the negotiations, but we don't currently believe it is in the best interest of rUK, and will be looking for other options should the question arise" rather than "Can't happen, won't happen"?

I'm pretty sure that also answers your other question?

A question for you - the non-yes side deliberately picked the name "Better Together". Do you feel that their campaign has been about how we are currently and can always be better together, or more about how we are worse on our own?

And a question for everyone - were Salmond and Darling the correct choices as leaders on their respective sides?

[Confidemus]

If only I hadn't said... exactly the opposite.

Stick to posting screen grabs from Twitter.

Get her!

Saucer of milk over here, please!

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Darling got stuck on the trident question.

Saying he doesn't want it, then telling us why it's vital to jobs and the local economy, and moving it "just over" the border isn't the answer.

Salmond missed a trick with that one, trident isn't a question just about jobs, it's a moral one and he could at least have asked him if he thought it was right to store these weapons within 40 miles of our largest city.

Without wanting to start the sames arguments again, I don't think you can make the moral argument while also advocating NATO membership. The financial argument is the easiest one to make against Trident from the SG's current position.

[printer]

Again, rather than avoiding the issue, please illustrate exactly why its a strong bargaining position to go into negotiations where you have said "I really want this and I badly need it and I don't want to consider any fallback position because they are awful".

Now, let's play hardball.

[H_B]

On the flip side though, should Osborne, etc have been more conciliatory? "We accept the Scots may want to discuss it as part of the negotiations, but we don't currently believe it is in the best interest of rUK, and will be looking for other options should the question arise" rather than "Can't happen, won't happen"?

I'm pretty sure that also answers your other question?

It doesn't answer my question.

But yes, I think the rUK message could have been worded better and been more concilatory. I can understand the anger though the SNP's arrogance provoked.

A question for you - the non-yes side deliberately picked the name "Better Together". Do you feel that their campaign has been about how we are currently and can always be better together, or more about how we are worse on our own?

And a question for everyone - were Salmond and Darling the correct choices as leaders on their respective sides?

No, I think the BT campaign has been awful. Mired in fail from Day One and populated by incompetents.

I don't think Darling has been a bad choice, thugh persoanlly I'd have gone for Charles Kennedy, assuming his health would allow. I think he is much more popular and a much better speaker.

I'm not sure Salmond really has been the leader of the Yes campaign. I've seen Sturgeon a lot more than him. I think both have their weaknesses, but there's no question Salmond is the most talented of the SNP candidates.

Again, Patrick Harvie is the most amiable and reasonable Yes politician, but the Greens aren't credible enough for him to get the gig.

[Thumper]

They have found around 900 million barrels of oil in the Darien region

Uh-oh.

[printer]

The pound is not an asset. This has been done time and time again on here.

And yet some people are too thick to get it.

Of course it doesn't help when Jabba the Eck claims if we don't get to share the pound we won't take any debt.

[Double Jack D]

See if this is true, how has Scotland managed to be the economic success it is?

1/5th of the population in poverty is a success?