« | Home | »

Salmond v. Darling

Tags: |

At eight o’clock yesterday evening, Alan Titchmarsh: Love Your Garden aired on ITV in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scottish TV broadcast a two-hour live debate between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling at the Royal Conservatoire in Glasgow. Billed as an evening that would decide the future of the United Kingdom, the first televised debate ahead of next month’s independence referendum was available only to viewers in Scotland. (The STV live stream, accessible throughout the union, reportedly crashed early on.)

The evening began, as almost everything in Scotland seems to these days, with the unveiling of an opinion poll. The moderator, Bernard Ponsonby, solemnly reported that 42 per cent intend to vote Yes, 58 per cent No, ‘when you strip out the don’t knows’. Salmond has never been a great debater – journalists who say he is have never had to endure first minister’s questions at Holyrood – but both Yes Scotland and the unionist campaign, Better Together, seemed keen to talk up the SNP leader. Pete Wishart, the Scottish nationalist MP for Perth and North Perthshire, said beforehand that the ‘slaughter will be worse than the Bannockburn re-enactment’.

The debate, when it finally started, looked like any other: two middle-aged men in suits gesticulating a lot, sometimes talking over each and occasionally shouting. The format was only recently imported to Britain but already it looks unbearably familiar. Salmond, calmer than usual, focused on the positive: an independent Scotland would be a fairer, more progressive place. He took little sorties from his podium, walking towards the audience, arms outstretched, to deliver rehearsed soundbites: ‘rocks will melt in the sun’ before the SNP introduces tuition fees. Darling emphasised the risks of leaving the UK. When the SNP leader said that only independence would guarantee that Scots get the government they vote for, the former chancellor pointed his finger across the rostrum and shouted: ‘I didn’t vote for him but I’m stuck with him.’ The audience clapped and booed in equal measure.

The main event – the ‘cross-examination’ – saw each man given twelve minutes to interrogate the other. Darling spent almost nine minutes haranguing Salmond over the question of what currency Scotland would use if the rest of the UK rejected a post-independence currency union. Salmond prevaricated, citing newspaper clippings and old press releases. If there is a No vote next month, Yes supporters could be left regretting the decision not to outline a currency Plan B, which many wavering Scots say they are worried about. Darling, for his part, struggled to answer questions about provisions for further devolution, even though the three unionist parties had announced earlier in the day that they had signed a joint pledge for more powers for the Scottish Parliament after the general election.

The commentators in STV’s ‘Spin Room’ declared the contest a draw: ‘No knock-out blows have been thrown.’ A snap post-debate poll put Darling ahead, 55 to 45, more or less in line with the pre-debate poll on referendum voting intentions.

I was left wondering what happened to the engrossing public conversation that I have heard over the last two years. By far the most interesting aspect of the Scottish independence debate has been the mass rallies and the town hall meetings. Scotland Decides reverted to type: enervating party hacks and a Punch and Judy show. The STV anchors kept telling viewers that ‘the debate has trended worldwide’ but if there were any undecided voters still watching by the time the curtain came down at 10 p.m. they could be forgiven for not bothering to vote at all on 18 September.

Comments on “Salmond v. Darling”

  1. Amateur Emigrant says:

    A very disappointing two hours. As someone said, the winner was Bernard Ponsonby.

    As for Plan B, I wish Salmond could simply point out that to declare Scotland’s Plan B would be to go into a negotiation openly declaring its lowest acceptable position. Only a fool negotiates like that.

  2. Robin Kinross says:

    For the duration of the Edinburgh Festival, there is an alternative TV discussion about independence going on here:
    It shows what you can do with a gathering of non-oppositional people, calmly sitting down together, talking, and listening to each other. As someone remarks in the first programme, in 10 minutes of this discussion they got much further than Darling and Salmond did in two hours.

    Another virtue of the Referendum TV broadcasts: it shows that the discussion is so much wider than Salmond vs [whichever suited man the No campaign has put up for the occasion]

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • UncleShoutingSmut on Goodbye, Circumflex: Unfortunately this post is likely to leave readers with a very partial idea of what is going on. Firstly, there is no "edict": all that has happened i...
    • martyn94 on The Price of Everything: If it's a joke at anyone's expense, it's surely at the expense of any super-rich who take it seriously. I used to skim it occasionally as a diversion ...
    • mideastzebra on Swedish-Israeli Tensions: Avigdor Liberman was not foreign minister November 2015.
    • lars hakanson on Exit Cameron: Europe will for good reason rejoice when the UK elects to leave. The country has over the years provided nothing but obstacles to European integration...
    • Michael Schuller on Immigration Scandals: The Home Office is keen to be seen to be acting tough on immigration, although I'm not sure that the wider project has anything to do with real number...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement