In the early hours of Friday morning Scotland was waking to the news that the SNP had made a historic clean sweep (almost) of Scottish seats. For the next five years there will be fifty-six SNP members of parliament, barring any by-elections. The SNP’s near whitewash sends the strongest possible message, to those in power at Westminster, that Scotland will no longer play second fiddle, no longer be guinea pigs for unpopular policies and no longer be accused of being “subsidy junkies”. We are, after all, better together are we not? Surely those who fought the break-up of the Union will be pleased that Scotland has a party representing them in parliament. A party that will ensure that Scotland gets a fairer deal, a party that will fight cuts to the NHS, cuts to benefits for the disabled, and a party that will seek to end the Conservatives crippling austerity measures.
There are those who are already blaming the Scottish electorate for giving Britain another Tory Government. But what they fail to take into consideration is that, in the past, Scotland has traditionally voted Labour and still ended up with the Tories in charge. In fact had Labour taken all of the available seats in Scotland, it would not have made a blind bit of difference to the result. Furthermore, if you add the seats that the Conservatives did not win, it comes to 319 which is not enough for a majority. Labour lost to the Tories because they failed to convince the electorate that they were “of the people”. To give Ed Miliband credit, he did try and appeal to the masses as a likeable, average bloke. However, you cannot fake being something you are not. Miliband should have owned up to his privileged background instead of trying to hide it.
The fate of Labour in Scotland had long been predicted, and Jim Murphy’s shouting routine didn’t endear him to the Labour voters lost during last years independence referendum. In fact, Murphy seemed to be fighting a losing battle having to use the desperate tactic of making SNP supporters look like angry thugs, something that much of the media did well to promote. But all of that is over, and Scotland is facing the backlash for having the temerity to dare challenge the status quo. Labour might have clawed back some seats had their campaign been focused more on their own policies instead of one of fear. We were treated to public pronouncements that a vote for the SNP would lead to a Tory Government. Scotland, in effect, was being lined up as the scapegoat for Labour’s many shortcomings.
Scottish Labour collapsed because they moved away from their founding principles. This is not to say that Labour Councillors, working on the frontline in some of the most deprived areas in Scotland, are part of the problem. If anything, they actually represent a brighter future for Scottish Labour. By working with those most affected by austerity, they can bring that invaluable experience to the policy makers to ensure that the vulnerable are looked after. Hopefully it will be these people who come through to steer Scottish Labour back to their origins of looking after people first, instead of being career, self-interested politicians.
In May 2014, UKIP’s David Coburn was elected as Scotland’s Member of European Parliament (MEP). An Ipsos MORI poll conducted in October found that fifty-six per cent of Britons would vote to remain in the EU and sixty per cent of Scots felt the same. Furthermore, a YouGov poll from November found that seventy-two per cent of Scots would vote to remain in the EU. However, when I quoted these polls to Mr Coburn, he described them as ‘utter tosh’, a seemingly flippant disregard for the polling process. In an interview conducted by the EU Reporter, shortly after he was elected, Mr Coburn was asked how he would represent the electorate that had voted for him. He replied ‘my objective, by coming here, is to make myself redundant as soon as possible. My objective is to get Scotland and England out of the European community.’ That was six months ago and in that time Mr Coburn has attended the European Parliament a total of four times according to his European Parliamentary activity. MEP’s receive a standard monthly payment of €7,957 (£6.537), almost £40,000 of the UK taxpayer’s money in six months.
When I asked him about his activities he seemed far keener in talking about the SNP, he even went on a tirade describing SNP supporters as ‘crusties, extremists, (and without a single iota of irony) fascists and against democracy.’ Despite my best efforts to find out exactly what he does for Scotland, everything came back to how separatist Salmond, and now Nicola Sturgeon, were doing their best to ensure that more laws were taken out of Scottish hands and passed to the EU. He stated further, ‘I take a very active role in defending Scottish fishermen, unlike the SNP who have been fighting to defend the EU.’ Mr Coburn continued…’I am part of the fisheries committee and the energy committee; I have put forward several important questions on Scotland’s EU membership during the independence referendum.’ An SNP spokesperson refuted these claims by stating ‘the SNP has been working tirelessly to improve Scotland’s standing within the European community and we have been campaigning to get the best deal for Scotland’s citizens.’
UKIP Press Conference in Glasgow
I also asked Mr Coburn how he was representing the majority of Scots in the EU. He replied ‘I am highlighting any problems that face the Scottish people and I am highlighting how these unelected people of the EU are trying to destroy Scotland’s interests’. Mr Coburn felt that he had fully answered my questions; however, I felt that he took the opportunity to lambast the SNP rather than talk about his own and UKIP’s achievements.
On October 20 2014, legislation from the Scottish Government will come into effect meaning that retailers across Scotland must charge a minimum of 5p for single use carrier bags. It is hoped that this scheme will curb the amount of single use bags used in Scotland. Many of which appear on waste sites and landfills around the country. It is also hoped that the charge will encourage more of us to re-use our plastic and plant-based organic bags, and recycle the ones which have seen better days.
The charge is to be applied when a customer requires a new bag to carry purchased items from the store or shop; the charge also applies to online deliveries. The bag can be made from paper or some plant based materials. Your local newsagent or convenience store will be obliged to charge for plastic bags. However, businesses which employ less than ten members of staff are not required to record the amount of bags sold or monies received for the charge.
“This charge is not a tax but will see retailers donating the proceeds to charity and has the potential to raise millions of pounds for good causes, including environmental projects. The Scottish Government and delivery body Zero Waste Scotland have been working closely with retailers at all stages of the process and will continue to do so in the run up to October 20 and beyond.”
However, this statement is contrary to the Zero Waste Scotland website:
“The Regulations do not impose any obligation on how the net proceeds of the charge should be used; the decision on how to use this money is one for individual businesses to make. The Scottish Government is encouraging retailers to donate the net proceeds of the charge to good causes in Scotland, particularly ones that benefit the environment and to publish information on donations.”
You can find more information on the introduction of legislation which affects retailers by clicking here.
It is expected that the introduction of the charge will see a fall in the number of plastic bags used by UK supermarkets. Nonetheless, charging 5p per bag will still bring in a hefty sum for retailers. At the moment, it is up to the individual companies on what to do with any monies received from sales of the single use bags.
Outlining the motives behind the legislation, a Scottish Government Spokesperson stated:
“The Scottish Government has introduced the Regulations to further the litter and waste prevention programme and in fulfilment of a commitment in the 2011 manifesto. Extensive consultation was carried out on the proposals, including two public consultations and discussions with stakeholders including retailers. The proposals received a great deal of support from across a range of stakeholders and the public.”
The aim of the scheme is admirable; however, what is required is a more ruthless approach to cutting our carbon footprint. It is similar to putting a plaster on a deep stab wound. The damage has been done already and we need drastic action. Instead of enforcing this charge on the public, more money should be given to those that produce 100 per cent biodegradable bags. At the very least, most, if not all, of the profit made by the big retailers should be spent on such research. Companies which produce plastic bags, will, as a result of this legislation, manufacture less and less. This may lead to redundancies and people being put out of work. Instead these companies which produce plastic bags should get help from the government to convert their factories into making more earth friendly bags. Hopefully we will see a move away from plastic altogether with more money being invested in research to manufacture greener receptacles.
Let us face the facts, the majority of the Scottish electorate, fifty-five percent, voted against Scotland becoming an independent country. That is the result and we can do nothing but accept it as fact. However, we do not need to forget it, or let go of the dream of one day being an independent nation. Based on nothing more than my conversations with no voters, the reasons for voting no includes, fears over economy, defence, currency, border control and bloody Doctor Who. Furthermore, the notion that voters were turned from voting yes by the image painted by politicians and the media that the SNP and its members as nasty, angry nationalists was put forward, while the same press ignored nationalistic sentiment from the no side. This helped create an environment in which fear was a massive factor in deciding which way to vote. As a by-product, anyone associated with the yes side were lumped together as a single frame of mind and ideal. The truth is, that the yes campaign transcended many different sections of society, with most sharing nothing in common with the SNP, other than their desire for constitutional change through Scottish independence.
The “vow”, not worth the paper it was printed in.
The scare stories, which were designed to frighten people to vote no, came from all angles. We had media reports telling us that the oil was running out, and that Scotland could not survive without the financial aid of Westminster. We were billed as subsidy junkies, looking for handouts from a benevolent master. “Please sir can I have some more”. However, as it looked like Scotland might vote for independence, up stepped the leaders of the UK to promise us less than what independence would deliver. The press played a massive part in project fear, giving us daily doses of doom and armageddon should we choose wrongly. Out of all the publications in the UK only The Sunday Herald supported a yes vote. Every other newspaper and media outlet refused to officially announce itself one way or the other, however, their leanings were obvious and punctuated by anti-independence announcements from businesses.
The big four supermarkets threatened to raise their prices if Scotland voted yes. How this could be seen as anything other than a bluff is beyond me. It would have been impossible for them to increase the costs of essentials without losing a large bulk of their customer base. Yes and no voters would have been driven off in their masses. A boycott of every single business that supported maintaining the union is simply impractical. However, boycotts do have their place and should be used where their impact will be felt the greatest. It would be hard for people, already struggling, to shop elsewhere, every penny counts. Believe it or not, these places offer the best value for money. It’s all well and good having principles, but if you can’t feed your family, or yourself then, what’s the point.
Threats to hike prices seemed to work for some voters.
Furthermore, it would also be difficult to hurt the media with any boycott. Print media’s circulation has dropped dramatically over the years due to the rise of smartphones and tablets. The biggest source of any newspaper’s wealth, in print or on the internet, is through advertising. Given this fact it would be hard to see how a boycott would affect income. Refusing to buy a particular publication will have less of an impact than previously as most people get their news online. I’m sure there will be those among you who like the feel of the paper between their fingers, but by and large this is not the case. RBS and Clydesdale were among the Scottish banks which threatened job cuts in the event of a yes vote. However, it would also be difficult to change bank accounts to a different provider considering most of us are living off of our overdraft and simply do not have the funds to close the account.
The businesses which would be most affected by any boycott are those that rely on a regular subscription fee, for example, Sky and Virgin Media both came out against independence, both have considerable reach, in terms of viewership, and both depend on regular subscription fees. It would be rather easy to cancel your subscription to these services and find an alternative supplier. You can get most TV programs on catch-up services and freeview is also available. Plus, boycotting Virgin should be the norm, given the amount of tax avoided via an immoral, yet legal loophole.
A private tax collecting company.
Another effective boycott could be done against the biggest offender of the independence referendum. The BBC licence fee brings in nearly £4 billion a year. This television tax helps pay over inflated wages to its stars and directors. I would strongly urge everyone reading this to cancel your subscription to this outdated form of tax on the poor. If a representative from TV Licensing appears at your door, remember that they are a private company and in no way affiliated with the law. Do not speak to them, you are not obliged to answer any questions, you do not have to give them any information and any information they do get will only help them to legally enter your premises to check if you have a television capable of receiving a live signal. Remember that laptops and smartphones also require a licence to watch live television. You do not need a licence to watch catch-up. The licence is completely unnecessary and can be legally avoided. If you would like to officially be free of harassment from this private company then you can follow the advice printed in The Telegraph on how to avoid the fee, which can be found by clicking here.
Patriotism was famously defined by George Orwell as passive admiration for one’s nation and that patriotism is based on peace, harmony, and equality. However, I am more interested in his thoughts on nationalism. The dictionary defines nationalism as “the strong belief that the interests of a particular nation-state are of primary importance. Also, the belief that a people who share a common language, history, and culture should constitute an independent nation, free of foreign domination.” Below is a description of nationalist behaviour and thought according to Orwell.
“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.”
These nationalist traits can be found in almost every nation that has ever existed. However, to each nation it is not nationalism but patriotism. Their citizens are absolved from the nationalist tag by virtue of their own nation’s perceived traditions, values and beliefs. The belief that it is only other nations or cultures which are capable of barbaric behaviour and that their country is above reproach. For example, their country is not capable of terrorism or war crimes. This is the case even when there are several examples of such behaviour, although it simply cannot be accepted. To do so would entirely invalidate their outlook, they criticise other nations in order to vilify them and to justify their superiority complex.
One has been labelled as patriotism, the other nationalism.
In the United Kingdom, one particular section of society exhibits these attributes best. In Scotland and Northern Ireland exists a way of life which is at odds with the rest of society. A religious belief and tradition which dates as far back as the sixteenth century, but with more emphasis on events of the late seventeenth century, namely Britain’s and the Netherland’s defence of the protestant faith against the papal threat of the Catholic King Louis XIV of France. However, more important in Scotland and Northern Ireland was the 1688 “Glorious Revolution”, which saw Catholic King, James VII and II of Scotland and England deposed of his throne. The English invited Prince William of Orange, husband to James’ Protestant daughter Mary to jointly take the throne of Scotland and England. James raised an army but was routed in 1690 by a force made up of Scots, Irish, and English troops. James’ attempt to take back his throne was undone on the river Boyne. The battle was framed in a Catholic versus Protestant fashion, it was a victory against popery. Out of these events emerged the Orange Order (OO) who every year commemorates the battle of the Boyne by marching through the streets of Northern Ireland and Scotland. This is by no means a concise history of the era and there are many more facets to the events described above.
Their ideology is still stuck in 1690, they still perceive a Catholic threat against their Protestant way of life and are willing to defend it, violently if needed. Followers of Williamite doctrine have attached themselves to Rangers Football Club, an organisation with a strong Protestant identity. I should say that being a Rangers fan is not synonymous with the OO, in fact the majority of fans, seemingly, do not identify with them at all. Many fans actually despise what they stand for and see them as having no part in a modern, civilised society. We are the people (WATP) a football chant which can be heard at most Rangers FC games, home or away, will also be emblazoned upon banners that surround OO marches. It is more than just a football chant, it sends a clear message, which is that those who chant it believe themselves to be the chosen people, the true protestant followers and defenders of Great Britain. They believe that white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants are a superior breed, the chant is nothing more than master race rhetoric.
George Square in Glasgow the day before. A carnival like atmosphere.
The events witnessed in Glasgow on September 19, 2014, which were carried out by pro-unionists, was not an example of patriotism, instead it was sheer hatred, largely based upon religious extremism. “NO SURRENDER” they shouted. “WE ARE THE PEOPLE” they chanted. “THIS IS OUR COUNTRY” they spewed. Patriots do not burn flags, patriots can accept and tolerate the differences of others. Nationalists, however, do burn flags, nationalists cannot accept different views or criticisms. The SNP and Yes voters were accused of being nationalists, not only from mindless bigots, but from people in positions of power. Politicians, celebrities and business owners fueled the vilification of yes supporters while ignoring the extreme nationalism of no campaigners.
British nationalists spewing religious extremism.
It is my firm belief that this type of behaviour is the cause of a large amount of hatred still prevalent in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is religious extremism, dressed up as nationalism, but desguised as patriotism. The type of hatred spewed by these people do not belong in a modern, harmonious and civilised society. Orwell’s definition of patriotism does not fit in with Williamite ideology. However, this thought process has seen a massive rise in England with hate groups such as the English Defence League, political parties such as UKIP and the BNP, and the white supremacist group the National Front. These groups eschew nationalist thinking while calling themselves patriots.
Despite calls for Nigel Farage to stay away from Scotland, UKIP’s anti-independence rally went ahead in the heart of Glasgow’s city centre. Farage and his cronies galloped into Scotland on their white steads to save a damsel in distress from an evil overlord. UKIP’s representatives from around the UK delivered speeches on economics, health service and defence. Inside the Laphroaig lounge and lecture theatre of the Teacher’s building in St Enoch Square sat journalists and members of the public. With the action kicking off at 18:30 with a press conference, which was supposed to be led by Nigel Farage and his trusty Scottish side kick, David Coburn, which set out UKIP’s motives for their rally. However, due to delays, the sidekick was given the lead role, with UKIP’s Head of Media, Alexandra Philips, claiming that Mr Farage was only ever going to be lending a supporting role to Mr Coburn. Alongside him were Henry Reilly and Nathan Gill representing UKIP for Northern Ireland and Wales respectively.
Nigel Farage recently claimed in an interview on American TV that “Salmond has stirred, amongst 16 – 24 year old Scots, a kind of anti-English hatred.” However, public protest against UKIP is not synonymous amongst Scots. There is a plethora of examples of angry protesters attacking UKIP events in England. UKIP have even gone as far as to demand that protesters who call them fascists should be locked up, the irony being completely lost in the process. In the same interview he claims “well over fifty per cent of the people in Scotland are living on benefits of some kind.”
I was hoping to ask Nigel Farage to substantiate these claims, however, due to his absence at the press conference, I instead put them to Mr Coburn. Not only asking him to clarify Farage’s claims, but also that his statement could in turn incite an anti-Scottish sentiment. Coburn stated that “He (Farage) does not claim infallibility so he may well have got it wrong.” NI UKIP representative, Henry Reilly asserted “what Nigel actually said was that fifty-one per cent of the people in Scotland claim one benefit or another and that is pretty much the norm for NI, Wales and England. It was a statement of fact that effects most of the UK.” However, I believe that Farage’s statement was intended to portray Scotland, and Scotland uniquely, as being a drain on the UK tax payer.
Coburn went on to argue that the fifty-one per cent of Scots on some kind of benefit shouldn’t even be happening. “Scotland has been run as a socialist model state for many, many years and it has been a financial catastrophe”. He continued “the SNP have made Scotland a no-go area for capitalism and a no-go area for people with ambition, UKIP aim to to change that.” Coburn claimed that UKIP are the only true unionist party left in the UK. A ‘yes’ vote could possibly serve to galvanise unionist sentiment in Scotland and when asked how he sees UKIP in an independent Scotland, he stated that “by 2016 UKIP would be leading a campaign for another act of union, this time one which will benefit England more”.
David Coburn left to deal with the press.
Coburn faced some tough questions from the other press members. He confirmed that since being elected as Scotland’s MEP he is yet to hold any surgeries in Scotland, despite claiming his full MEP salary, and has not yet bought a house in Scotland. When asked to explain his stated admiration for Vladimir Putin, Coburn replied “Vladimir Putin is doing a good job for his country, I do not think that he is a particularly nice guy, but he is particularly effective at turning Russia from being an anarchy into some sort of order. We do not admire that he has got an expansionist policy, however, the Ukrainian problem was not caused by Putin, but by the EU.”
In order to find out the location I had to register my interest through the UKIP press office. Attendance seemed dependent on pre-screening in place of the usual rally practices, which is normally to inform as many people as possible and hope for a large turnout. Inside the Laphroaig lecture theatre there were a few spare seats still available as the speeches got underway. The majority of the audience were made up by journalists, photographers, and official UKIP members, with a scattering of the public to give it a whiff of credibility.
“flegs”
In the event of a no vote, which UKIP hope is the case, they set out a plan for England to get a better deal out of the union. Farage believes that the Scottish independence debate has largely disregarded the concerns of the English and that they may pursue a constitutional settlement of their own. He also attacked the Yes campaign’s notion of independence stating that; “what is unarguable is that you cannot be an independent nation if you are a member of the European Union.” In that respect France is not an Independent country, nor is Belgium, Germany, or the Netherlands. However, each of these nations retain entire control of their own affairs. If Scotland can be as independent as any of these sovereign states then that can only be a good thing.
Could Farage be using the referendum debate as a smokescreen to drive support for getting out of the EU? His statements certainly seem to suggest so. “They are (Scottish citizens) being told they can be independent and be members of the European Union, if you are members of the EU, their courts are supreme over yours, it really is a false proposition”. As well as attacking the EU, he also claimed that David Cameron had fumbled the referendum from the start when he stated that:
“from the beginning I was astonished that the Prime Minister allowed for the separatists to be given the ‘yes’ side of the referendum question. Far better from his point of view, you would have thought, would have been to have asked the question “should Scotland remain part of the United Kingdom?” And to keep the positive on his side. But no, on this he blundered.”
Farage also criticised Cameron’s failure to include the Devo-Max option on the ballot paper, accusing him of being as “arrogant as Edward II was at Bannockburn.” You know…that time Scotland defeated the English to retain independence. Farage continually asserts that this referendum is not about independence for Scotland but, about separation from England. His words, he claims, are really pitched at disgruntled Labour voters who are considering voting ‘yes’.
So to Nigel Farage and UKIP in general, we Scots do not object to your Englishness, nor do we object to your pride in all things British. We simply reject your policies and your ideals as being at odds with a peaceful and welcoming society.
The rest of his speech can be found here Nigel Farage speech, however, he doesn’t say anything new.
Today I attended a Radical Independence Campaign (RIC) rally in Glasgow. Supporters of Scottish Independence were scheduled to meet at the top of Buchanan Street at 12pm with an expected turnout of 1000 people. The aim of the rally was to take over Glasgow and turn the city into a hub of information, stalls, outreach, and engagement for independence. With just a few days left until the registration deadline (September 2) the RIC pushed the importance of registering to vote and even provided the necessary forms. At just after noon, the attendees were organised on the steps of the Royal Concert Hall for the waiting press to snap their pictures. At this point a crowd began to mill around speaking to each other and taking pictures of the event.
Enthusiastic Yes activists then split up into three groups. Setting up stalls on Buchanan Street, Argyle Street and Sauchiehall Street with leaflets, flyers, and voter registration forms in hand. The streets were awash with throngs of shoppers who had gathered around the information stalls to debate with the campaigners.
RIC created a carnival atmosphere with friendly activists ready to answer any questions. The streets of Glasgow were buzzing with enthusiasm, not for Alex Salmond, the SNP, or any anti-English sentiment but for the desire for social change within Scotland.
Making an impassioned and articulate speech, Falkirk born novelist and playwright, Alan Bissett, made a strong case for Scottish Independence. Highlighting the need for social change, Bissett claimed that generations of past Scots have been denied the right to self-determination. Furthermore, that the referendum was the best chance that Scotland has ever had to take power from the ruling Westminster elite.
Bissett placed emphasis on the power being in Scotland’s hands and the uncertainty that the future holds. He also admitted that the future was full of risks, but that he would rather Scotland be in full control when facing those risks.
Full control would enable Scotland to have power over the renationalisation of the railway industry and Royal Mail, the axing of the bedroom tax, and the dismantling of the Trident Missile System.
Outlining how he thinks Scotland would be viewed in the event of a no vote, Bissett Claims that the ruling elites would not allow us this opportunity again. He then compares any thoughts of a future referendum for Scottish independence to Catalonia’s fight for independence from Spain. The Spanish Government continually refusing a referendum for the Catalans.
As a happy coincidence, Labour for Independence had set up a stall in the shadow of the statue of Donald Dewar, Scotland’s inaugural First Minister. However, they were keen to inform me that they had been campaigning from that spot for the past two weekends.
Labour for Independence are a grass roots campaign set up by Labour supporters and Labour party members who are unhappy at what Labour has become. Labour for Independence campaigner, Paul Patterson, stated;
“We are about making Labour a party for the people. It’s about getting back to the soul of Labour, what it started it out as. An independent Scotland gives us that opportunity.”
I also spoke to Alex Bell, chairman of Labour for Independence, to get a feel for who they are and why they support independence. Alex spoke about the loss of Labour principles, which he believes were sacrificed at the dawn of Tony Blair’s NuLabour. Alex firmly hopes that the Independence Referendum gives Labour for Independence the platform to bring the Labour party back to its founding values.
They envision a return to social and welfare policies designed to benefit of those who need it most. They aim to restore the confidence that working people once had in Labour.
Labour for Independence also believe that the independence campaign has given the disenfranchised a voice. Those who do not feel represented by Westminster now have the chance to make a change and have their say. This, according to Bell, explains the marked increase in voter registration in Scotland.
Fresh from their ice bucket challenge, First Minister Alex Salmond, and Better Together leader, Alistair Darling, locked horns in the second live television debate at the Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow’s West End.
The first debate saw fifty-six per cent of 500 Scots polled voting Darling as the victor. This was due to Alex Salmond’s inability to answer what his plan B for currency would be in the event of Westminster refusing a currency union with Scotland. On this occasion Salmond was better prepared, unleashing not one but three alternatives to a currency union.
Setting out his currency plans, the First Minister argued that the most sensible option for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be a currency union. However, other options were laid out, such as a fixed rate Scottish pound attached to the pound Sterling and a flexible currency similar to Sweden and Norway.
Nonetheless, Alex Salmond reiterated that “no one can stop us using the pound Sterling; it is an internationally tradable currency.” This point was later confirmed by Alistair Darling when he stated “Scotland cannot be stopped from using the pound.”
Darling’s opening statement focused on the points won in the last debate. His relentless pursuing of Salmond’s plan B on currency and more promises that “no thanks will not mean no change”, were not followed up by any clear plan of action. With Darling’s Labour party currently out of power, it is hard to see how the former Chancellor of the Exchequer could deliver on any promises of further devolution for Scotland.
The debate turned from currency to oil with Salmond keen to underline that regardless of the varied estimates of how much oil is left “it cannot be regarded as anything other than a substantial asset for the people of Scotland.” Darling hit back by saying “you are promising all sorts of things on the basis of a source of revenue that is very volatile.” Salmond claimed that independent estimates say that the oil is good until at least 2050.
Next was the NHS with Darling accusing Salmond of scaremongering. This claim was met with derision from the crowd, and a bemused chuckle from Salmond.
The First Minister pointed out that Darling’s own Labour party believe that Tory policy is going down the road of privatisation.
Salmond also argued that fears of a private NHS in Scotland would be quashed by a Yes vote. He claims that financial control, as well as operational control would mean that the NHS would be protected from privatisation.
From the bedroom tax to the naval base at Faslane, which currently houses the Trident Missile system, both Darling and Salmond engaged in a shouting match to win each point. However, underneath the squabbling and bickering, Salmond made some salient points which should put peoples mind at ease.
Firstly, he claimed that the Scottish Government have spent £50 million compensating those affected by the bedroom tax. Furthermore, that there would never have been such a tax had Scotland controlled its own affairs.
Secondly, he argues that in the event of Trident moving south and taking jobs with it that “our policy is to have Faslane as the headquarter base of the Scottish Defence Force, which will create a large number of jobs.” The transition time for the removal of Trident would be five and half years, something which Salmond claims is an adequate time frame.
In that time Scotland could begin to build up its own defence force, creating jobs in the process.
In a poll of 500 Scots conducted in the aftermath of the debate by the Guardian website, Alex Salmond was deemed the winner this time taking seventy-one per cent of the votes.
This result speaks more to the performance of both men rather than the substance of their arguments. Salmond delivered a polished presentation, even engaging the crowd by stepping from behind his podium in a gesture which suggests ‘I’m one of you.’
Darling, on the other hand, delivered a nervy opening statement, which was followed by question after question on the currency. His inability to let go of the point made him look like he was grasping at straws. His argument was less linear and less coherent than Salmond’s.
James Owens 