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.
I once abhorred the idea of comparing contemporary political leaders to Adolf Hitler. This was long before my understanding of how someone, such as Hitler was able to rise to power. My comparison to Farage is not intended to be one of Nazi idealism or superior eugenics. Instead I focus purely on the similarities of the societal unrest and financial hardship which punctuated the late 1920’s and into the 30’s. It is this backdrop to which Hitler was allowed to rise, and in which Farage seems to be rising. Furthermore, similarities exist in the way that Farage has galvanised many, leaderless right wing factions underneath one semi-respectable political party. The BNP made in-roads in that respect; however, their forward momentum could not be sustained due to infighting and public scandal. BNP’s loss has been UKIP’s gain, with Farage himself claiming that “UKIP are Britain’s only remaining unionist party.” Furthermore, many of their members once followed, or continue to do so, groups such as the English Defence League, Combat 18, and National Front (UK). UKIP appeals to those who feel that Britain has been taken over by foreigners from Brussels, in the shape of the EU, Eastern European citizens looking for work, and the Islamic religion. Much in the same way that German’s had become disillusioned with the Weimar Republic and the Jewish and Gypsy populations.
Extreme right-wing groups of the UK.
Through-out history racist and xenophobic sentiment has been at its highest during times of extreme recession. Indigenous populations lash out at foreigners as the cause of hardship, which is not a contemporary phenomenon, but one which can be seen through many great depressions. The prime example is the rise of fascism is in central Europe in Germany and Italy in the lead up to World War II. Even in the US in 1939 there was Nazi rally held in Madison Square Garden. Not only is this an environment in which social unrest is likely, but it is also evident that right wing political parties are seen as the solution to the lame duck governments soft handling of those deemed to be the root cause of the problem. Just two days ago France’s far-right National Front party won its first two seats in the upper house of French parliament. Golden Dawn in Greece, a far-right party with ultranationalism, fascism, and neo-Nazism as its central ideology, has seen its share of the electorate in Greece go from 0.1 per cent in 1996 to 6.92 per cent in 2012. Furthermore, similar to UKIP’s success in the European Parliament, Golden Dawn increased its share from 0.1 per cent in 1994 to 9.4 per cent in 2014. These increases, like UKIP’s, have come at a time of social unrest created by economic depression, poverty and high unemployment.
Golden Dawn’s 1980 and current design. Both heavily influenced by the swastika.
UKIP have been derided as political no-marks in the past, however, their brand is growing ever more popular, more so than expected. This is evident with the recent party defections from the Tory party, as well as their winning of seats at the European Parliament. They now have twenty-four. Farage is a well-educated man and a great politician. Great in the sense that he knows how to play the game, he knows what people want to hear and how to win people over. Nigel Farage represents the sentiment that British traditions are being eroded. The British way of life is under threat and that UKIP are the panacea for those worries and fears. He has the charisma to rise further, he has the ability to swat away his detractors and win yet more voters.
It is my firm belief that current and planned Tory policies, should they win at the next general election, will only help to drive more people in to poverty. More people will become unemployed and disillusioned with the government. They will in turn blame those who are seen to be benefiting from Britain, namely immigrants, and they will turn to a party that best represents their anger, hopes and fears. There is a light at the end of this dark tunnel, and that is in Scotland. The independence referendum result was disappointing; however, it has awakened Scotland to the power of their vote, the power of their need for constitutional change. Since September 19 the SNP has seen their membership climb to over seventy thousand, more than doubling. This has seen them become the third biggest political party in the UK. A fact which will not sit well in the corridors of power in Westminster.
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.
UKIP are planning to hold a rally in Glasgow on September 12, just six days before the referendum. David Coburn, UKIP’s only Scottish MEP, will be joined by party leader, Nigel Farage. The purpose of the rally is to drive home the idea that the UK is one single united country.
David Coburn, Scottish MEP for UKIP.
The location of the rally will be kept under wraps until the day of the event. Something, which I believe is counter-productive to the aims of any rally. The purpose of a rally should be to invite potential supporters.
In this case that would be the undecided Scottish voters and unsure Yes voters. With a core of committed supporters spreading their message, UKIP should aim to convince those on the fence that maintaining the Union is the correct course of action.
If, however, it is only UKIP supporters and members who are aware of the location, it means that the number of attendees will be lower than you would expect at a rally of this nature. As many undecided voters should be aware of this rally as possible if UKIP want it to have any meaningful impact.
UKIP’s apprehension to reveal the exact location is based on security fears. This is due to recent history of UKIP activity in Scotland. Nigel Farage last year was practically chased from Edinburgh while on the campaign trail, eventually having to be escorted by the police.
The public have the right to protest anything they do not agree with, however, it should be done in a democratic fashion. It should not be an angry mob as it only gives the Better Together camp ammunition to attack the majority of the peaceful, positive Yes camp.
UKIP presence in Scotland, particularly as Pro-Union campaigners, may backfire for the Better Together campaign. There seems a real fear that UKIP may turn potential no voters to vote yes. It is my opinion that most citizens of Scotland, yes and no voters, are turned off by many of UKIP’s policies. For this reason its a thanks but no thanks from the Better Together on UKIP’s referendum involvement.
Thanks but no thanks to UKIP.
The Yes camp believe that the UKIP rally could put a dent in the No camp’s chances of winning the referendum. A Better Together spokesman has already officially came out against UKIP’s involvement stating – “UKIP have no part to play in our campaign.”
I will be attending the upcoming rally in order to bring you a detailed account of the event.
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 