This blog supports Scottish Independence. Comments on it, and contents of linked blogs, do not necessarily reflect Munguin's opinions.
Person to person, No is outgunned from top to bottom.It is not going to happen unless No gets to set the agendas of each debate.I wonder if the BBC could help out here?
Yes. And each person has a set of responsibilities. Cameron and Salmond are heads of government and set agendas; Sturgeon and Moore are their respective deputies as far as the constitutional thing with Scotland is concerned; the chairs are the chairs; the chief execs are chief execs; the finance experts are erm finance experts (sort of); Harvie and Lamont are the opposition parties on both sides of the debate.I'd have thought that it US that sets the agenda. We need everything covered. Even Wee Willie Rennie's three million treaties...one by one, and No's 508 questions...one by one...
TrisAs much as it would be an arse kicking for the no campaign, as we saw when Sturgeon kicked Moores arse, there won't be many debates unless the polls start to show swings to the yes campaign. That may happen as the debate moves on but I agree with Inner, right now it's not going to happen. Pity as it would be informative, would def show the no campaign for the liars they are.Side issue bought McWhirters book at the weekend and going to read in the hols when I get a whole week off, looks interesting though.Bruce
Yes, I guess the No campaign is happy with things the way they are. The wouldn't want any of their side to be pounded into the ground.And regardless of what you think of their argument, we do have the stronger team. Cameron would lose against Salmond, and Moore already lost against Nicola. John Swinney actually understands finance, sop he would have a hand over fist victory over osborne who go the job because he went to the right college.I couldn't comment on the two Blairs, or on Canavan against Darling or Patrick against Johann. I dunno if anyone else has any specific knowledge of their comparative debating abilities?I will read it too. I have to say the second show was a powerful argument for independence. What I cannot see is why given all that happened in the 1980s, everyone in Labour isn't for independence.Time after time Scotland voted heavily against Thatcher's butchering; time after time Scotland got what it didn't vote for.And then they treated us far worse.The point that was made that all the riots for a year in Scotland didn't put Thatcher off her poll tax; but when the English didn't like it, it was immediately changed.Ever felt like you didn't belong, count or matter to the central authorities?
I can't say I entirely agree with that order of preference.Why can't we just have Salmond, Cameron and Miliband debate each other like we had the GE Party leaders debates?
"Why can't we just have Salmond, Cameron and Miliband debate each other like we had the GE Party leaders debates"1) Because a referendum isn't a party political issue. Even if it was, what about the Greens, the independents, the Libdems all of whom have representatives at Holyrood? It would have to be a gie big panel. 2) It's an election with two choices, and loading the panel with people supporting one option is undemocratic3) because two of the people you mentioned don't have a vote in the election. ( I accept that also applies for two of that 16 people Tris lists but most do have a vote)There are probably more reasons, but I think those are enough.
So Dean, you are proposing loading the panel 2 to 1 in favour of your preferred outcome as opposed to the BBC's current conclusion that 4 to1 in favour of their preferred outcome, on balance, seems about fair. I see no difference in principle between your arguments, just in the numbers. What is it you are finding difficult about the concept of equality of voice and numbers? British fair play surely? (ho,ho)Braco
Dean. I agree with Cameron. It is largely a Scottish debate. The only reason that I included Cameron and Osborne is that Cameron is the head of the government that is saying no; head of the government that ruled out devo max, when most opinion polls showed it to be the most popular option, and an option that the Scottish government was prepared to contemplate, as would be Scottish Labour, Liberals and Greens. Now you and I know why he said that (and was probably legally correct to say it), but he never explained to us why he said no to the most popular option.The reason is that it would not please the English. And that would be bad for HIS vote. I'd like him to be forced into a situation where he has to explain that.He has said its nothing to do with him, but then he raises it whenever he is in Scotland. I'd like to see him against Salmond to explain why being on the G8 is more important that better schools; why nuclear weapons are more important than cancer drugs; why having the 4th largest military spend is more important than dualling the A9... or having proper 20th century trains north of Edinburgh.These things may matter to some, but to the average Scot they do not.But Miliband is really nothing to do with this. He will not be PM, or indeed hold any position of power when the referendum comes, or for the main part of the discussions thereafter.If you like, in a way, what he thinks is largely irrelevant. What mrs Lamont thinks, on the other hand, is important.
PP. I think you're right. There are two possible outcomes. YES or NO. There should only be one from either side.That said, there is no one in the list that represents the Liberals, and they should be represented... maybe Willie Rennie could debate with Margo MacDonald?
Agreed Braco. :)
Tris said "That said, there is no one in the list that represents the Liberals,"Err, Michael Moore!
Sorry. I was thinking of him as a Tory ....Oooops!
Hard to tell them apart nowadays.
Well, I had genuinely forgotten that he was a Liberal. I tend to think of it as a tory government pursuing Try objectives like starving the poor and doing away with services that they need, like social security.I'd forgotten that Moore was actually not one of them...or not quite one of them.
The reason I included Ed Mili is because I don't rate wee Johann all that highly when it comes to debates and thinking on her feet... so yeah, maybe I was trying to have my cake and eat it. I confess! :)
LOL. Well, Dean. She gets the salary for the job, so I guess she should do it.Actually there may be some advantage in having Johann. At least she's not posh and very obviously southern. Remember what Rifkind said about Mrs Thatcher: A woman, an English woman and a bossy English woman.
If I was in the No camp I would want Charles Kennedy, Douglas Alexander and Mags Curran in there somewhere, and Cameron and Osbourne a million miles away...
Yes, I can see the advantage of having Chic Kennedy. He's popular and he's a clever debater; probably the best the Liberals have. I have to admit I know precious little about Alexander, except that he is Wendy's brother adn thought to be quite bright... but if I were the No campaign I wouldn't want the stairheid rammy woman at any cost. She's dim, well out of her depth and comes over as bitter beyond belief that the SNP are in government when SHE should be in government.
Regardless of what camp your in, a million miles isn't far enough when it comes to Margaret Curran.;-)
Ahhh yeah, well I pretty much agree. She tends to be good for the yes camp, though, so I'd not mind her sounding off bitterly about the union.The thing about these people is that they have no power to make anything happen. Their jobs are entirely separate (with the exception of Current) from Scotland. It's hard to see who you would put them against. maybe Angus Robertson for Curren. The others ....?
I'd like to see a photo of Darling and Salmond debating with the photo caption "Flipping Eck"
much likey :)
Cameron is a hypocrite that claims its nothing to do with him and then weighs in with a speech at the Scottish Tory conference (slightly less well attended than Alistair Darlings) full of emotive tripe about the union. And then gives an interview to a Scottish Sunday paper equally full of sentimental gush about his most successful union in the universe. And he also engineers a union jack waving event in Glasgow to celebrate the commencement of the most bloody war in history!He knows Alex would simply take him and his argument apart in a live debate. It’s him that feart and who would be flying by the seat of his pants. But he would never talk down to us of course. He’s brimmed full of tearful respect for Scotland and our democratically elected dictator “the mad Scotsman” as he warmly refers to Alex.
You're right munguin. He's jam packed full of bullshit.They simply cannot afford to let Scotland go.The wealth and the status would go and they would be left as British prime ministers having to concentrate on the state of the roads and the NHS. These are things of little interest to them compared with hosting dinners for Obama and Putin.
Saw this and thought you all would be interested!"ST Surveys: Do you agree that London is subsidised by the rest of the UK?Yes: 86% No: 8% Don't Know: 6%"https://scottishtimes.nationbuilder.com/support_scottish_times
Good site Dean. ThanksLooks like there's an overwhelming majority of people who know that London is the most highly subsidised part of the UK, which is interesting because it is also the richest.I was listening to a discussion about house prices on the radio this morning. It seems that they have continued to rise in London and the Home Counties with only a minor blip in 2008/9.And there was me thinking we were all in it together!