Tonight's televised debate

[The People's Chimp]

Mr Salmond deserves his platform this election. He deserves his time to speak and be questioned on the 3 years of SNP goverment we've lived under. To say that's not important to many Scots is an utter joke.

 

He'll get that, no doubt, when the next Scottish Parliamentary elections come round.

[Beverley]

incidentally, i thought angus did well on that debate

[The Old Tolbooth]

Evening Girls

 

I don't see what Alex Salmond or indeed Plaid Cymru's, Ieuan Wyn Jones are going to add to a debate on what is effectively a prime ministerial beauty contest. Neither are going to form a Westminster government and actually neither are likely to have any impact on even a hung parlaiment.

 

I see your point, but if it came down to a vote on league reconstruction in the SPL, would you expect Rangers and Celtic to have the only say in the matter because technically they are the only two clubs that can win the league, or would you want Hearts and the others to have some say in the matter?

[blairdin]

In what way do we get a lot of regional bang for our bucks? I'm really interested to know exactly what you tune into and watch that makes it so. Can you provide examples?

 

Mr Salmond deserves his platform this election. He deserves his time to speak and be questioned on the 3 years of SNP goverment we've lived under. To say that's not important to many Scots is an utter joke.

 

 

River City. Top notch broadcasting, ken wot ah mean likesy...

 

The bit in bold I absolutely agree with. It doesn't matter who gets in at Westminster in 2 weeks time, it will impact on Alex Salmond and whoever leads the Scottish Parliment after the 2011 election up here. I want to know how secure the funding given to Hollyrood for the Scottish Parliment to split and spend on the devolved issues is. The West Lothian question could become hugely relevant if we're heading for a hung parliment. I want to know that high speed rail will come further north than the Midlands. I want to know about renewable energy plans. Capital spending for the new Forth Bridge and similar projects. The First Minister of Scotland, regardless of his political allegiance, should be given a public platform to put these questions the the three main Westminster leaders IMHO.

[Patrick Bateman]

Salmond had his chance last week and he enver even turned up!

 

That's because he is the First Minister of Scotland and isn't standing at the next Westminster election. If people can't see the democratic problem with these debates I really do despair. We do not operate a presidential system. This isn't X Factor, it's about running a country. The three main unionist parties have received a disproportionate amount of attention in Scotland and have aired opinions on devolved matters which they have no legislative control over, and are therefore misleading voters. It's shameful. And from an English perspective, UKIP and the BNP, as unsavoury as they are to most in Scotland, have a sizeable support and merited inclusion in debates, whether people are comfortable with it or not.

[The Mighty Thor]

In what way do we get a lot of regional bang for our bucks? I'm really interested to know exactly what you tune into and watch that makes it so. Can you provide examples?

 

Mr Salmond deserves his platform this election. He deserves his time to speak and be questioned on the 3 years of SNP goverment we've lived under. To say that's not important to many Scots is an utter joke.

 

Not exhaustive but here is a flavour of what BBC Scotland does; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Scotland#Selected_BBC_Scotland_programming_for_Scotland good value for your ?145.50 licence fee

 

I think you're mixing up your elections. This is a Westminster election, this is not about 3 years of the minority SNP government we currently have, you'll have the opportunity to effect that in about 2 years time in elections to the Scottish Parliament. It is a time to question the SNP (and the other parties) about what they will do at a national & international level on reserved matters and not about devolved matters.

[Patrick Bateman]

I see your point, but if it came down to a vote on league reconstruction in the SPL, would you expect Rangers and Celtic to have the only say in the matter because technically they are the only two clubs that can win the league, or would you want Hearts and the others to have some say in the matter?

 

 

That's a great analogy. I should be astonished that a great deal of people can't see it, but then again, a great deal of people have allowed themselves to be carried away in a wave of Electioneering and media narrative. Folk seem to have forgotten about Labour's wilful rendition and complicity in various other human rights abuses committed in our name. And they trust these same people to repair the economy and lead by example? Staggering stuff.

[The People's Chimp]

A 'regional debate' broadcast on Sky at 10.30am this Sunday? Doesn't that socially exclude many? Not to mention the many others that won't be tuning in at that time on that day due to other commitments. It's a disgrace and if you wish to think otherwise then that's up to you.

 

The hungover, the sunday footballers and the minority who still go to church?

[The Mighty Thor]

A 'regional debate' broadcast on Sky at 10.30am this Sunday? Doesn't that socially exclude many? Not to mention the many others that won't be tuning in at that time on that day due to other commitments. It's a disgrace and if you wish to think otherwise then that's up to you.

 

How many does it socially exclude? What sort of viewing figures do you think a Scottish leaders debate will generate regardless of broadcasting time or channel?

 

I don't think it's a disgrace for the reasons i gave earlier. Every time Alex Salmond gets a national platform he goes all belligerently Braveheart and the debate is lost.

[Big D]

Surely Alex Salmond can have his own debate inside that ?450M horribly designed, concrete and bamboo monstrosity diddy parliament down at Dumbiedykes?

 

.

 

Which was foisted on us by the liar Dewar and his London cronies, despite the sensible and inexpensive option of the old High School, propoposed by the SNP, among other non Unionists. Do you also think the Folketinget, Storting, Oireachtas or Eduskunta are diddy parliaments?

[The Mighty Thor]

I see your point, but if it came down to a vote on league reconstruction in the SPL, would you expect Rangers and Celtic to have the only say in the matter because technically they are the only two clubs that can win the league, or would you want Hearts and the others to have some say in the matter?

 

I'd expect Hearts to want a say but that's not what's going on here.

 

to take your analogy forward suggesting the SNP are going to affect UK political reform is like suggesting that Newtongrange Star are going to affect 'league reconstruction' of the English Premiership.

[Martin_T]

How can you say Scotland is "much stronger" within the Union when we have areas of Scotland with a life expectancy lower than Baghdad. You just don't see that in other comparable nations, do you? So you'd say that Scotland's economy within the Union isn't healthy - yet we're 'much stronger' than without it? That's a non-sequitur argument and you know it. Show a bit of vision and a bit of optimism and you'll see that not only is an independent viable but that it can and will be a good thing.

 

So an independent Scotland is going to cure the sick and increase life expectancy is it? Are you aware that prior to the act of Union, Scotland was one of the most impoverished nations in Europe? That poverty and sickness is largely concentrated on the west coast where a horrific diet plays a large part. Should we have an independent east coast and cut out the sick man?

 

An independent Scotland is a nice idea based on romanticism, feeding off some sort of ludicrous idea that we are somehow 'oppressed'. However I have yet to see a convincing argument for independence that doesn't draw in the tartan/shortbread/Braveheart nonsense. An independent Scotland would not have been able to save two of it's biggest private employers (RBS and HBOS), an independent Scotland would struggle to afford the high proportion of public spector jobs and indeed without extremely high taxation (difficult given the unemployment that would arise), Scotland would struggle to tackle the health and social problems you highlight.

 

Iceland, Ireland and Norway amongst others were held up by nationalists as examples of what an independent Scotland could aspire too. Well all of those countries have one thing in common, they are absoutely goosed financially and like it or lump it, finance rules the world. Scotland is more able to stand up to the current economic turmoil by drawing strength from it's position within the UK.

[kitster]

Not exhaustive but here is a flavour of what BBC Scotland does; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Scotland#Selected_BBC_Scotland_programming_for_Scotland good value for your ?145.50 licence fee

 

I think you're mixing up your elections. This is a Westminster election, this is not about 3 years of the minority SNP government we currently have, you'll have the opportunity to effect that in about 2 years time in elections to the Scottish Parliament. It is a time to question the SNP (and the other parties) about what they will do at a national & international level on reserved matters and not about devolved matters.

 

No I'm not. This is a time to question everyone who affects every life in Britain. Instead all it's become is 'it's a 3 horse race you have to vote for one'. Well sorry I'll vote for who I want as it's also between other parties who control other parts of the UK as well as the main three parties. They can and do make a difference for their regions with a stronger voice at Westminster. You clearly don't know Scottish political history or about how it has changed things in the past with a voice in London. I'd imagine you don't read much about it though.

[The Old Tolbooth]

I'd expect Hearts to want a say but that's not what's going on here.

 

to take your analogy forward suggesting the SNP are going to affect UK political reform is like suggesting that Newtongrange Star are going to affect 'league reconstruction' of the English Premiership.

Fair enough, and I understand what your saying, but there are no leagues or divisions in politics, there is no top tier, second tier, and third tier, they are all in the same league, even if they don't want to be, ergo they should all have an equal say in matters.

 

What I'm trying to say is that some people in the UK have views on parties outside of Tories or Labour, and these peoples views should be represented on the big stage along with the supposed big two that everyone seems to vote for as a matter of habit.

[The Mighty Thor]

No I'm not. This is a time to question everyone who affects every life in Britain. Instead all it's become is 'it's a 3 horse race you have to vote for one'. Well sorry I'll vote for who I want as it's also between other parties who control other parts of the UK as well as the main three parties. They can and do make a difference for their regions with a stronger voice at Westminster. You clearly don't know Scottish political history or about how it has changed things in the past with a voice in London. I'd imagine you don't read much about it though.

 

That's a fair old leap of assumption you're making there, and i'd suggest it's entirely without basis. I fully understand the Scottish political situation and it's history thanks. I also have a fairly good handle on our 'regional assembly' and it's limited powers.

 

You should remember that because someone doesn't share your point of view it doesn't make them wrong or because they can't spell licence, it doesn't make them stupid

 

You're vote is all yours, use it as you see fit. It was what Emmeline Pankhurst fought for.

 

Personally I don't buy the whole Salmond schtick of 'more SNP seats means more cash in a hung parliament'. It's more an aspiration than a reality and in the economic climate i fear anyone that thinks it's going to happen is deluding themselves.

[The People's Chimp]

No I'm not. This is a time to question everyone who affects every life in Britain. Instead all it's become is 'it's a 3 horse race you have to vote for one'. Well sorry I'll vote for who I want as it's also between other parties who control other parts of the UK as well as the main three parties. They can and do make a difference for their regions with a stronger voice at Westminster. You clearly don't know Scottish political history or about how it has changed things in the past with a voice in London. I'd imagine you don't read much about it though.

 

You really do come across as far too naif to be dishing out abuse to people who argue their point. I don't want to insult your intelligence, but perhaps you should be careful about insulting that of other people.

[The Mighty Thor]

Fair enough, and I understand what your saying, but there are no leagues or divisions in politics, there is no top tier, second tier, and third tier, they are all in the same league, even if they don't want to be, ergo they should all have an equal say in matters.

 

What I'm trying to say is that some people in the UK have views on parties outside of Tories or Labour, and these peoples views should be represented on the big stage along with the supposed big two that everyone seems to vote for as a matter of habit.

 

I'd disagree John. Westminster is the Premiership and Holyrood is the SPL.

 

I know what you're saying mate and i can see why people are getting would up about it all going on sans Salmond, i just don't understand why?

 

Do you watch match of the day? You're a Hearts supporter right? Does it make you want to stop being a Hearts supporter? No you watch it with an interest but at the same time a detachment because you support Hearts. That's how i watched that debate tonight.

[The Mighty Thor]

That's a fair old leap of assumption you're making there, and i'd suggest it's entirely without basis. I fully understand the Scottish political situation and it's history thanks. I also have a fairly good handle on our 'regional assembly' and it's limited powers.

 

You should remember that because someone doesn't share your point of view it doesn't make them wrong or because they can't spell licence, it doesn't make them stupid

 

You're vote is all yours, use it as you see fit. It was what Emmeline Pankhurst fought for.

 

Personally I don't buy the whole Salmond schtick of 'more SNP seats means more cash in a hung parliament'. It's more an aspiration than a reality and in the economic climate i fear anyone that thinks it's going to happen is deluding themselves.

 

Feck me i can't even distinguish between my your and you're.

 

It's past my bedtime and i've got foundation English in the morning!

[kitster]

That's a fair old leap of assumption you're making there, and i'd suggest it's entirely without basis. I fully understand the Scottish political situation and it's history thanks. I also have a fairly good handle on our 'regional assembly' and it's limited powers.

 

You should remember that because someone doesn't share your point of view it doesn't make them wrong or because they can't spell licence, it doesn't make them stupid

 

You're vote is all yours, use it as you see fit. It was what Emmeline Pankhurst fought for.

 

Personally I don't buy the whole Salmond schtick of 'more SNP seats means more cash in a hung parliament'. It's more an aspiration than a reality and in the economic climate i fear anyone that thinks it's going to happen is deluding themselves.

 

woooo..the fear politics! Jim Murphy would be proud All a hung parliament does is give more parties more right to a say ...nothing else is a given and you'll need to back the above up with some factual content.

 

I only want a level playing field and I feel my posts above express that.. Thanks for letting me vote the way I want ..awfully good of you.

[shaun.lawson]

That's because he is the First Minister of Scotland and isn't standing at the next Westminster election. If people can't see the democratic problem with these debates I really do despair. We do not operate a presidential system. This isn't X Factor, it's about running a country. The three main unionist parties have received a disproportionate amount of attention in Scotland and have aired opinions on devolved matters which they have no legislative control over, and are therefore misleading voters. It's shameful. And from an English perspective, UKIP and the BNP, as unsavoury as they are to most in Scotland, have a sizeable support and merited inclusion in debates, whether people are comfortable with it or not.

 

In theory, you're correct. In practice, you're absolutely not. We've been operating a de facto Presidential system for decades now: at least since Thatcher's time. And our system actually gives more power to the executive than almost anywhere else in the Western world.

 

Some people vote locally, on local issues, for a particular individual. Many others vote nationally, and who a party's leader happens to be is massively important in that. Labour got nowhere under Michael Foot; the Tories got nowhere under Hague or IDS; the Lib Dems were hopeless under Ming. Conversely, both Thatcher and Blair were monumentally successful at the ballot box - and their leadership was what made the difference.

 

The great irony in your argument is, if it wasn't for Salmond, the SNP - and very possibly the whole cause of Scottish independence - would be sunk without trace. To much of the public, Alex Salmond is the SNP: his personality and charisma makes the difference in a televisual, multi-media age in which, like it or not, personality and charisma are extremely important.

 

And to once again repeat: the SNP and others will have their say in regional debates - because the SNP are not a UK-wide party!

[The Mighty Thor]

woooo..the fear politics! Jim Murphy would be proud All a hung parliament does is give more parties more right to a say ...nothing else is a given and you'll need to back the above up with some factual content.

 

I only want a level playing field and I feel my posts above express that.. Thanks for letting me vote the way I want ..awfully good of you.

 

Assumptions, assumptions.

 

No fear politics from me and i don't vote Scottish Labour either, I don't think Jim Murphy is a particularly good politician. A hung parliament potentially gives more parties more of a say but parties looking to conduct regional blackmail can paralyse a hung parliament and we go into another election pretty quickly.

 

I'm not sure which bit requires more factual content but if you mean Alex Salmond's claim that he can get more cash for Scotland then i'd suggest it's him that needs to be putting a bit more flesh on the bone as UK plc's coffers are empty and i can't see where he thinks all this 'extra money for Scotland' is going to come from. It's soundbite-tastic.

 

On the 6th May the playing field is billiard table flat. All the parties are equal until the X goes in the box.

[The Old Tolbooth]

I'd disagree John. Westminster is the Premiership and Holyrood is the SPL.

 

I know what you're saying mate and i can see why people are getting would up about it all going on sans Salmond, i just don't understand why?

 

Do you watch match of the day? You're a Hearts supporter right? Does it make you want to stop being a Hearts supporter? No you watch it with an interest but at the same time a detachment because you support Hearts. That's how i watched that debate tonight.

I see your point, but I still think its wrong to an extent mate, simply because I'm a great believer in freedom of speech and think that everyone's opinion should be treated as an equal, no matter whether you vote for Tories, Labour, SNP, Lib Dems, BNP, Monster raving loony party or whatever, there are people in the UK that don't get heard because the big two dominate everything and bully (possibly the wrong term) the majority into thinking that because of who they are, that they must be believed. (if that makes sense)

 

I'm one of those people who are very open minded unlike a lot of people, if I like a parties policies at a general election then I'll vote for them, but I may change my mind the next time if another party comes up with better policies which appeal to me, too many people see following a political party like following a football team whereas you never change your colours, and that's just wrong imo because political parties change their ideas and manifestos from time to time to suit their own agenda, and sometimes that agenda suits me too.

 

One thing that winds me up greatly is people who live in a political stronghold area, whether it be Labour, Tories, Libs Dems or SNP, and because that area has always been held by a certain party, they just blindly vote because its "aye been", they don't actually sit down and look at what party is going to benefit them the greatest with what their proposals are, they just tick the same old box that they have been doing for the past 40 years, its a bit of a joke really, my parents sadly are a prime example

[The Mighty Thor]

I see your point, but I still think its wrong to an extent mate, simply because I'm a great believer in freedom of speech and think that everyone's opinion should be treated as an equal, no matter whether you vote for Tories, Labour, SNP, Lib Dems, BNP, Monster raving loony party or whatever, there are people in the UK that don't get heard because the big two dominate everything and bully (possibly the wrong term) the majority into thinking that because of who they are, that they must be believed. (if that makes sense)

 

I'm one of those people who are very open minded unlike a lot of people, if I like a parties policies at a general election then I'll vote for them, but I may change my mind the next time if another party comes up with better policies which appeal to me, too many people see following a political party like following a football team whereas you never change your colours, and that's just wrong imo because political parties change their ideas and manifestos from time to time to suit their own agenda, and sometimes that agenda suits me too.

 

One thing that winds me up greatly is people who live in a political stronghold area, whether it be Labour, Tories, Libs Dems or SNP, and because that area has always been held by a certain party, they just blindly vote because its "aye been", they don't actually sit down and look at what party is going to benefit them the greatest with what their proposals are, they just tick the same old box that they have been doing for the past 40 years, its a bit of a joke really, my parents sadly are a prime example

 

OK John a good/bad analogy on my part. My point in a roundabout way was i don't think these TV debates will change many people's voting intentions.

 

Your latter points reads like the summary of modern Scottish political history Kitster thinks i might be missing. It's been the 'son of ma faither' routine that's seen 50 or so Scottish Labour MP's returned for 40 plus years.

[shaun.lawson]

 

 

One thing that winds me up greatly is people who live in a political stronghold area, whether it be Labour, Tories, Libs Dems or SNP, and because that area has always been held by a certain party, they just blindly vote because its "aye been", they don't actually sit down and look at what party is going to benefit them the greatest with what their proposals are, they just tick the same old box that they have been doing for the past 40 years, its a bit of a joke really, my parents sadly are a prime example

 

Me too John. In Islington, where I've been campaigning and canvassing over the last week, I've come across a lot of people who vote Labour for no other reason than they always have, meaning Labour take them for granted and don't do anything for them. When the constituency looked like going Lib Dem last time, Labour mobilised enormously over the final week, and went round all the estates and poorer areas basically telling the inhabitants: "You can either vote for us, in which case life will be tough, but bearable; or you can vote Tory, in which case they'll evict the lot of you and eat your children".

 

It's very depressing in many ways - but in Islington at least, I'm confident change is coming.

[Auld Reekin']

So an independent Scotland is going to cure the sick and increase life expectancy is it? Are you aware that prior to the act of Union, Scotland was one of the most impoverished nations in Europe? That poverty and sickness is largely concentrated on the west coast where a horrific diet plays a large part. Should we have an independent east coast and cut out the sick man?

An independent Scotland is a nice idea based on romanticism, feeding off some sort of ludicrous idea that we are somehow 'oppressed'*. However I have yet to see a convincing argument for independence that doesn't draw in the tartan/shortbread/Braveheart nonsense**. An independent Scotland would not have been able to save two of it's biggest private employers (RBS and HBOS), an independent Scotland would struggle to afford the high proportion of public spector*** jobs and indeed without extremely high taxation (difficult given the unemployment that would arise), Scotland would struggle to tackle the health and social problems you highlight.

 

Iceland, Ireland and Norway**** amongst others were held up by nationalists as examples of what an independent Scotland could aspire too. Well all of those countries have one thing in common, they are absoutely goosed financially and like it or lump it, finance rules the world. Scotland is more able to stand up to the current economic turmoil by drawing strength from it's position within the UK*****.

 

Yes. Yes please. Yes we should. (Only... unfortunately, no we can't... )

 

* Bullplop.

 

** How 'bout this one: bringing truly-devolved power genuinely closer (at least 400 miles north), to the people?

 

*** You're just trying to scare the electorate now...

 

**** Is Norway goosed...??? (please refer to http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/norway/norway_economy.html & https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html sorry if these websites are a bit too left-wing / "nationalist" for you...)

***** Really? What evidence do you have for this extraordinary statement?

[Ulysses]

Iceland, Ireland and Norway amongst others were held up by nationalists as examples of what an independent Scotland could aspire too. Well all of those countries have one thing in common, they are absoutely goosed financially and like it or lump it, finance rules the world. Scotland is more able to stand up to the current economic turmoil by drawing strength from it's position within the UK.

 

I take your point about Iceland and Ireland, but Norway is probably the most prosperous country on the planet. Its financial sector was one of the least affected by the credit crisis. It had a shallow recession and has already come out of it. The government put some special measures in place in 2008 to prevent a liquidity crisis in Norway - and most of those measures have now been removed. In fact, Norway has increased interest rates to prevent its economy overheating. Unemployment has grown - but only to 4%.

 

One of the main reasons why Norway is so wealthy and why its government was able to manage events so well is because of its substantial oil revenues. As a small country with big oil reserves, Norway has been able to use oil revenues wisely to build reserves for long-term economic stability and development.

[Auld Reekin']

I take your point about Iceland and Ireland, but Norway is probably the most prosperous country on the planet. Its financial sector was one of the least affected by the credit crisis. It had a shallow recession and has already come out of it. The government put some special measures in place in 2008 to prevent a liquidity crisis in Norway - and most of those measures have now been removed. In fact, Norway has increased interest rates to prevent its economy overheating. Unemployment has grown - but only to 4%.

One of the main reasons why Norway is so wealthy and why its government was able to manage events so well is because of its substantial oil revenues. As a small country with big oil reserves, Norway has been able to use oil revenues wisely to build reserves for long-term economic stability and development.

 

[The Old Tolbooth]

OK John a good/bad analogy on my part. My point in a roundabout way was i don't think these TV debates will change many people's voting intentions.

 

Your latter points reads like the summary of modern Scottish political history Kitster thinks i might be missing. It's been the 'son of ma faither' routine that's seen 50 or so Scottish Labour MP's returned for 40 plus years.

Sadly I think your correct with this, I'd like to think otherwise as this appears to be a much fairer way of doing things and letting people vote for whatever party suits them best, but I have a feeling that this television debate malarkey is more aimed at getting the 70% of the population who don't bother voting, to come out and actually have their say, and if only 20% more come out and vote then I guess its been a result. Its quite embarrassing when you see an area that has 1 million people eligible to vote, and there was only 300,000 votes counted, meaning that the majority just don't give a toss about who gets in, but are probably the first to complain when decisions get made.

[2NaFish]

but in Islington at least, I'm confident change is coming.

 

don't worry, i dont expect the tories will get in there.

[shaun.lawson]

don't worry, i dont expect the tories will get in there.

 

But the symbolism of the Lib Dems winning a seat where the whole New Labour project was hatched would be highly significant. Incidentally, Granita, the restaurant where the so-called Blair-Brown deal was done in 1994, has since been renamed. It's now called Desperados.

[Ossory_Jambo]

I take your point about Iceland and Ireland, but Norway is probably the most prosperous country on the planet. Its financial sector was one of the least affected by the credit crisis. It had a shallow recession and has already come out of it. The government put some special measures in place in 2008 to prevent a liquidity crisis in Norway - and most of those measures have now been removed. In fact, Norway has increased interest rates to prevent its economy overheating. Unemployment has grown - but only to 4%.

 

One of the main reasons why Norway is so wealthy and why its government was able to manage events so well is because of its substantial oil revenues. As a small country with big oil reserves, Norway has been able to use oil revenues wisely to build reserves for long-term economic stability and development.

 

So Norway has managed it's wealth wisely for a small nation and been able prosper due to substantial oil revenues.

 

But what of the other two (Iceland and Ireland) in the arc of prosperity, will they recover and survive as Independent countries, or will Ireland fall back and be part of Great Britain again and Iceland go back into some sort of existence with Denmark?

[Therapist]

I got bored with the debate as many of the questions in the "open" session had been asked the previous week. I thought Mr Cameron was the best performer, with Brown made to look extremely foolish over his snide leaflet campaign.

 

Two week's until Brown's out....tick tock

[Rab]

So an independent Scotland is going to cure the sick and increase life expectancy is it? Are you aware that prior to the act of Union, Scotland was one of the most impoverished nations in Europe?

 

I'd like some sources for that.

 

That poverty and sickness is largely concentrated on the west coast where a horrific diet plays a large part. Should we have an independent east coast and cut out the sick man?

 

Proportionately, the Greater Glasgow area has a worse rate of heart disease, stroke and other indicators of bad health. It's undoubtedly the unhealthiest part of Scotland. That doesn't mean there East coast is a bastion of good health.

 

Anyway, it's a poor argument. See the next point.

 

An independent Scotland is a nice idea based on romanticism, feeding off some sort of ludicrous idea that we are somehow 'oppressed'.

 

Far from being oppressed, we've been subsidising the Union financially, intellectually and materially pretty much from the beginning. Aside from the Thatcher years, I'd argue middle England has always been more oppressed than us, and for good reason.

 

However I have yet to see a convincing argument for independence that doesn't draw in the tartan/shortbread/Braveheart nonsense. An independent Scotland would not have been able to save two of it's biggest private employers (RBS and HBOS),

 

Whether or not any company - even a bank - should be saved should not determined by how many employees it has. In any case, most of the money RBoS received came from the US government via it's US subsidiaries, and you could argue HBoS wasn't even Scottish so the point is moot.

 

an independent Scotland would struggle to afford the high proportion of public spector jobs and indeed without extremely high taxation (difficult given the unemployment that would arise), Scotland would struggle to tackle the health and social problems you highlight.

 

The social problems highlighted have been problems whilst Scotland has been part of the Union. There's logic in the argument that these issues couldn't be worse in an independent Scotland.

 

Iceland, Ireland and Norway amongst others were held up by nationalists as examples of what an independent Scotland could aspire too. Well all of those countries have one thing in common, they are absoutely goosed financially and like it or lump it, finance rules the world. Scotland is more able to stand up to the current economic turmoil by drawing strength from it's position within the UK.

 

Norway was a horrible example, as pointed out above.

 

There's no doubt Scotland needs to get its act together if it ever wants to govern itself. Societal issues are a particular area of concern. But the right people elected at the right time can effect social change for the better, the wave of optimism that accompained Obama into office and the mandate he had to introduce social change via legislation is a recent example.

[Therapist]

Rab is a classic example of how people become more rabidly pro-Scottish and shortbread tin-ish, the further away from Scotland they live. There must be a mathematical formula that links distance to the degree of nationalist feeling. In fact, Rab is America's very own Sean Connery...

[Miller Jambo 60]

I got bored with the debate as many of the questions in the "open" session had been asked the previous week. I thought Mr Cameron was the best performer, with Brown made to look extremely foolish over his snide leaflet campaign.

 

Two week's until Brown's out....tick tock

 

 

Aye cant come quick enough, will be first at that polling station.

Easy walk for the conservatives.

 

 

Doug.

[shaun.lawson]

I got bored with the debate as many of the questions in the "open" session had been asked the previous week. I thought Mr Cameron was the best performer, with Brown made to look extremely foolish over his snide leaflet campaign.

 

Two week's until Brown's out....tick tock

 

That's you, the utterly impartial Murdoch press... and no-one else.

 

In football parlance, if there was a league table after the first two debates, it'd read:

 

Clegg 4 pts

Brown 1

Cameron 0

 

If Cameron couldn't skewer Clegg over Europe or immigration, he has no chance when it comes to the economy. It may well be two weeks until Brown's gone; but the prospect of it being two weeks until Cameron becomes PM recedes with every passing day.

[The Old Tolbooth]

That's you, the utterly impartial Murdoch press... and no-one else.

 

In football parlance, if there was a league table after the first two debates, it'd read:

 

Clegg 4 pts

Brown 1

Cameron 0

 

If Cameron couldn't skewer Clegg over Europe or immigration, he has no chance when it comes to the economy. It may well be two weeks until Brown's gone; but the prospect of it being two weeks until Cameron becomes PM recedes with every passing day.

Totally agree with this Shaun, I shudder to think of our country with Cameron in charge, emigration seems appealing.

[Gorgiewave]

The one outstanding thing that has become evident from the TV debates and the discussion on kickback is that nothing very fundamental is at stake in this election. In my opinion, the only thing that could make the election very "serious" is if it resulted in a government that allowed us to sink into a depression with 25% unemplyed or the like. An enduring three-party system would also be a fundamental change in British politics and make coalitions common and elections unpredictable for a long time.

 

Squabbling over whether free eye tests are in the Tory manifesto, respite for carers, helicopters in Afghanistan, the winter fuel allowance: all perfectly legitimate questions, but basically tinkering.

[The Mighty Thor]

That's you, the utterly impartial Murdoch press... and no-one else.

 

In football parlance, if there was a league table after the first two debates, it'd read:

 

Clegg 4 pts

Brown 1

Cameron 0

 

If Cameron couldn't skewer Clegg over Europe or immigration, he has no chance when it comes to the economy. It may well be two weeks until Brown's gone; but the prospect of it being two weeks until Cameron becomes PM recedes with every passing day.

 

You also forgot that the debate last night was stage managed to keep the question of Europe out of it. If Europe and the economy come up next week then Cameron is stuffed. His party will implode over Europe and he's (and his chum Gideon) been found out as clueless on Europe.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

The only thing I've learned from these debates is that Cameron is all fur coat and no knickers. He has nothing meaningful to say for himself - the Lib Dems are right when they claim that Call Me Dave seems to see No 10 as his divine right, rather that a right he's earned.

[rossthejambo]

After last night, I'd be fairly surprised if Labour were even 3rd in the polls in a fortnights time.

 

It will be a hung parliament, that there is no doubt in my mind unfortunately. As long as Dave Cameron doesn't get in power I'll be relatively content.

 

With regards to Salmond, I get the impression that he thinks the more injustice he portrays the more votes he'll pick up which worries me slightly tbh.

Yes it's unfair that the First Minister couldn't get in to the debate but as someone said earlier, it would become an absolute joke with Plaid Cymru, DUP, UKIP and the BNP all demanding an input as well.

[Patrick Bateman]

it would become an absolute joke with Plaid Cymru, DUP, UKIP and the BNP all demanding an input as well.

 

 

Why? They are all legitimate political parties. Why should some parties be given more exposure than others?

[rossthejambo]

Why? They are all legitimate political parties. Why should some parties be given more exposure than others?

 

 

It just would, there would be 8 different party leaders there trying to get their points across with others shouting them down.

 

It would be a shambles, regardless of whether they're legitimate parties or not.

[geddy]

It was mentioned that the SNP are not a UK party.

In fact the way they changed the rules/name of the debates under the reasoning that SNP ect are not fighting every seat is flawed.

None of the big 3 are totally UK parties as they don't stand in Northern Ireland!

[Gorgiewave]

Why? They are all legitimate political parties. Why should some parties be given more exposure than others?

 

 

I think the test would have to be "trivial or not". All the named parties have elected representatives at local, "national" (i.e., Scotland or Wales) or European level, so they are not, for example, some students who stand because it sounds like a great lark. The question would be, when to stop. The Liberal Party (the torchbearer of the original Liberal Party) have policies on every major area but get very few votes. They manage primary debates in America with all the initial candidates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XberX_t-WvI

[Ossory_Jambo]

It just would, there would be 8 different party leaders there trying to get their points across with others shouting them down.

 

It would be a shambles, regardless of whether they're legitimate parties or not.

 

Are you suggesting that the three main broadcasters would not have been capable of organising these debates on a region by region basis, I think you underestimate Sky News, BBC and ITV who were more than equipped to handle the debates in a fairer manner than they have.

[Big D]

So Norway has managed it's wealth wisely for a small nation and been able prosper due to substantial oil revenues.

 

But what of the other two (Iceland and Ireland) in the arc of prosperity, will they recover and survive as Independent countries, or will Ireland fall back and be part of Great Britain again and Iceland go back into some sort of existence with Denmark?

Just to bra

 

 

 

 

Just to broaden that argument. Norway's oil fund, paid for by the profits from their oil windfall is worth around ?5000 per inhabitant. We've spent ours on unemployment, wars, nuclear weapons and banks. No benefit to Scotland. Perhaps Ireland and Iceland got greedy as governments, and fell into the same trap as the U.K. They haven't got away with it because they do not have the UK.'s financial clout. They are no worse off than bankrupt Britain. And their continuing independence is as valid as the U.k.'s. 125 countries have gained independence since the 2nd World War. Can the cringers on here do a bit of homework and compile the list of these countries who are better placed to be independent than Scotland and the Scots?

[rossthejambo]

Are you suggesting that the three main broadcasters would not have been capable of organising these debates on a region by region basis, I think you underestimate Sky News, BBC and ITV who were more than equipped to handle the debates in a fairer manner than they have.

 

 

Not at all, what I'm saying is to use the format that they are using for these debates any more than 4 parties (IMO) would be shambolic.

 

I've no doubt that they could organise regional debates.

[The Mighty Thor]

Not at all, what I'm saying is to use the format that they are using for these debates any more than 4 parties (IMO) would be shambolic.

 

I've no doubt that they could organise regional debates.

 

They already have. There's one on Sky on Sunday at 10.30am, with further debates to be on BBC Scotland & STV

 

I'm not sure why Alex Salmond is representing the SNP though as he is no longer a Westminster MP and is not standing this time either. It's interesting to note that Angus Robertson, the leader of the Westminster SNP is appearing on the BBC & STV regional debates.

 

Actually i do know why Salmond is doing it, he's a media whore and wants to have his voice heard on national TV. It says a lot that he's not interested in doing the debates on the regional TV channels, BBC & STV, where he can talk to the Scottish electorate directly.

[rossthejambo]

They already have. There's one on Sky on Sunday at 10.30am, with further debates to be on BBC Scotland & STV

 

I'm not sure why Alex Salmond is representing the SNP though as he is no longer a Westminster MP and is not standing this time either. It's interesting to note that Angus Robertson, the leader of the Westminster SNP is appearing on the BBC & STV regional debates.

 

Actually i do know why Salmond is doing it, he's a media whore and wants to have his voice heard on national TV. It says a lot that he's not interested in doing the debates on the regional TV channels, BBC & STV, where he can talk to the Scottish electorate directly.

 

 

I did think I noticed a Scottish debate on STV last week.

 

If there's more happening then I honestly don't see what the SNP's problem is.