Looking better...
Last night's second debate was a better performance by Wee Eck than in the first debate: he put forward a broad and statesmanlike vision, whilst AD came across as petty. If politics is the art of presenting a narrative that voters can commit to, then Yes has a winner on its hands, while No is reduced to endlessly repeating, 'It'll never work.' That was pretty much the tenor of last night's debate.
The most noticeable difference was in what was said about the currency. Alex Salmond lost ground last time by not engaging with the question of what currency Scotland will use if no agreement can be reached on a sterling union, but recovered that ground this time by pointing to the options set out in the earlier policy paper. Since these options are known to everyone, and the final choice depends on negotiations, there's nothing here to discuss. Nobody - and especially not world economist Joseph Stiglitz - believes that the UK government will categorically rule out a currency union; that's just a negotiating stance, and if you go into a debate with a negotiating stance instead of with your real position, as No has, then the answer you'll get is the corresponding negotiating stance that Yes gave, namely, 'We're asking for a mandate to push for a currency union'. Good answer from AS, and end of story.
But not as far as Alistair Darling was concerned. He came back twice to the same specific question of what currency Scotland will use, once in a later section of the debate where the question was out of place, and again in his closing statement, where the question was by now intrusive, niggling and petty-minded, and detracted from any vision that he might have been intending to convey. Penalty points against AD on this one.
There was movement on Trident, too. Let's first of all dispose of the assertion that you can't belong to Nato if you don't have nuclear weapons. Nato has 28 members: two of them (USA and UK) have their own nuclear weapons, while five others (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey) host American weapons. This leaves 21 Nato members that neither possess nor host nuclear weapons, so it looks like you can belong. Alex wasn't too specific about the number of Trident jobs that the Scottish Defence Force will replace, but that doesn't worry me overmuch - I look forward to belonging to a country whose prosperity doesn't depend on instruments of death. What was different here was the moral argument that Yes put forward, that these instruments are an abomination that can never be used, and that the money spent on them should be put to more practical social use. The moral high ground taken here by Alex Salmond recalls the compassionate release by the Scottish Government of the Lockerbie bomber, which elicited howls of execration from US dickheads who didn't understand the meaning of compassion and raised Scotland's moral standing in the world by many, many notches, making me suddenly and unexpectedly quite proud of the country I seemed to have adopted. Correct answer from the Scottish Government on this one.
I'm not sure that Yes is right to highlight the NHS, because the chain of logic is too long. The thought seems to be: 'The UK Government is reducing the NHS spend in England; the Barnett formula is based on the size of the public spend, so this will reduce the Barnett subvention to Scotland; this in turn will reduce Scotland's ability to fund the NHS'. But the link between a smaller Barnett subvention and the ensuing need to reduce the Scottish NHS spend is tenuous - the Scottish Government could decide to absorb the reduction in other ways. So this argument doesn't carry that much weight.
On the other hand, AS was left exposed and briefless when facing the question, 'Name three job-creating powers that the UK will devolve to Scotland in the event of a No vote'. The only power he could name was the power to remain in the UK! Pull the other one, Darling.
A couple of questions seem to have gone away: border controls have rightly dropped out of sight, and the ability of banks as large as RBS to destroy the economy is not being harped on. (Why any government lets them in the in the first place is beyond me, unless it's a government that doesn't give a toss about anybody other than its chums.) Thumbs up to the girl who called AD a hypocrite to his face in an open forum on national TV - I doubt the BBC will invite her again! And well done to the First Minister on offering Alistair Darling a place on Team Scotland for the independence negotiations. This not only raises doubts over AD's position - is he committed to the people of Scotland, the Labour party or the Westminster government? - but also encapsulates in one gesture the inclusiveness, practicality and fairmindedness that will be characteristic of the new Scotland.
A comment towards the end of the debate suggested an 80 percent turnout, which we haven't seen in a UK election since 1951. That must be good for Yes, because it means a lot of first-time voters, and my intuition is that first-time voters won't be arsed to get out of bed to say No, whereas Yessers will get out of bed to say Yes. The No campaign doesn't seem likely to achieve its objectives anyway, with its relentless focus on detail and fear. They look more and more like a bunch of jobsworths who're going to lose 10 percent of their economy, 30 percent of their geographical territory, and possibly their seat on the Security Council. I think that the canaille is going to answer its own question ("Can I?") with a resounding Yes, and that the old guard are shitting bricks over it even as we speak.
The most noticeable difference was in what was said about the currency. Alex Salmond lost ground last time by not engaging with the question of what currency Scotland will use if no agreement can be reached on a sterling union, but recovered that ground this time by pointing to the options set out in the earlier policy paper. Since these options are known to everyone, and the final choice depends on negotiations, there's nothing here to discuss. Nobody - and especially not world economist Joseph Stiglitz - believes that the UK government will categorically rule out a currency union; that's just a negotiating stance, and if you go into a debate with a negotiating stance instead of with your real position, as No has, then the answer you'll get is the corresponding negotiating stance that Yes gave, namely, 'We're asking for a mandate to push for a currency union'. Good answer from AS, and end of story.
But not as far as Alistair Darling was concerned. He came back twice to the same specific question of what currency Scotland will use, once in a later section of the debate where the question was out of place, and again in his closing statement, where the question was by now intrusive, niggling and petty-minded, and detracted from any vision that he might have been intending to convey. Penalty points against AD on this one.
There was movement on Trident, too. Let's first of all dispose of the assertion that you can't belong to Nato if you don't have nuclear weapons. Nato has 28 members: two of them (USA and UK) have their own nuclear weapons, while five others (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey) host American weapons. This leaves 21 Nato members that neither possess nor host nuclear weapons, so it looks like you can belong. Alex wasn't too specific about the number of Trident jobs that the Scottish Defence Force will replace, but that doesn't worry me overmuch - I look forward to belonging to a country whose prosperity doesn't depend on instruments of death. What was different here was the moral argument that Yes put forward, that these instruments are an abomination that can never be used, and that the money spent on them should be put to more practical social use. The moral high ground taken here by Alex Salmond recalls the compassionate release by the Scottish Government of the Lockerbie bomber, which elicited howls of execration from US dickheads who didn't understand the meaning of compassion and raised Scotland's moral standing in the world by many, many notches, making me suddenly and unexpectedly quite proud of the country I seemed to have adopted. Correct answer from the Scottish Government on this one.
I'm not sure that Yes is right to highlight the NHS, because the chain of logic is too long. The thought seems to be: 'The UK Government is reducing the NHS spend in England; the Barnett formula is based on the size of the public spend, so this will reduce the Barnett subvention to Scotland; this in turn will reduce Scotland's ability to fund the NHS'. But the link between a smaller Barnett subvention and the ensuing need to reduce the Scottish NHS spend is tenuous - the Scottish Government could decide to absorb the reduction in other ways. So this argument doesn't carry that much weight.
On the other hand, AS was left exposed and briefless when facing the question, 'Name three job-creating powers that the UK will devolve to Scotland in the event of a No vote'. The only power he could name was the power to remain in the UK! Pull the other one, Darling.
A couple of questions seem to have gone away: border controls have rightly dropped out of sight, and the ability of banks as large as RBS to destroy the economy is not being harped on. (Why any government lets them in the in the first place is beyond me, unless it's a government that doesn't give a toss about anybody other than its chums.) Thumbs up to the girl who called AD a hypocrite to his face in an open forum on national TV - I doubt the BBC will invite her again! And well done to the First Minister on offering Alistair Darling a place on Team Scotland for the independence negotiations. This not only raises doubts over AD's position - is he committed to the people of Scotland, the Labour party or the Westminster government? - but also encapsulates in one gesture the inclusiveness, practicality and fairmindedness that will be characteristic of the new Scotland.
A comment towards the end of the debate suggested an 80 percent turnout, which we haven't seen in a UK election since 1951. That must be good for Yes, because it means a lot of first-time voters, and my intuition is that first-time voters won't be arsed to get out of bed to say No, whereas Yessers will get out of bed to say Yes. The No campaign doesn't seem likely to achieve its objectives anyway, with its relentless focus on detail and fear. They look more and more like a bunch of jobsworths who're going to lose 10 percent of their economy, 30 percent of their geographical territory, and possibly their seat on the Security Council. I think that the canaille is going to answer its own question ("Can I?") with a resounding Yes, and that the old guard are shitting bricks over it even as we speak.
Comments
Post a Comment