Comment posted BBC Scotland independence debate by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll.
I should add (before I get accused of being anti SNP which I am not) that I have been to conferences before with a similar question/answer session where each of the major policital parties were present and at those ones it was John Swinney representing the SNP and I left them in no doubt that he was by the far the most impressive.
Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll also commented
- Fundamentally David is right. The referendum is asking the people resident in Scotland if they want to be in a position where they have a government that makes decisions on Scotland’s future which is entirely influenced by what they consider to be Scotland’s priorities and needs. It isn’t, and can’t be, a referendum on independence with the country run by the SNP following this particular set of policies etc. This is because the government of the day will not be the government forever more and no future government is bound by the decisions of a previous one.
What the SNP needs to be doing is making clear what their policy will be on they key issues if they were in government in an independent Scotland. That is all they really can do.
I don’t think anyone genuinely believes that if Scotland does vote for independence there is a chance that the SNP won’t form the first government. They are the only major party promoting it and common sense dictates that should a majority vote for independence it is extremely unlikely that the SNP would not get enough of the public vote to then form the government. This is the reason that a lot of people probably feel that they are not just voting on independence but they are voting on an independent Scotland governed by SNP policy.
- I sat down and watched the show tonight and must say Dave that I didn’t see the show you described. In terms of the points made by each panel member there wasn’t really much said which we didn’t expect each of them to say given their stance on independence, and also there was little in their points of argument which was new or revealing.
Regarding your point about the Nicola Sturgeon being under attack by an unbalanced audience and shouted down by two other speakers with this being allowed by the chair – I have to say I entirely disagree.
There undoubtedly was some interrupting of each other (as there always is in political debate) but I thought the chair nipped it in the bud pretty quickly every time. If I had to rate them from 1 to 4, 1 being the person who did it the most then I would have Ruth Davidson first, Nicola Sturgeon second, and to be honest Anas Sawar and Patrick Harvie were fairly innocent compared to the other two.
There was only really three incidents where I thought the interrupting/shouting down was over the top.
1. When Ruth Davidson stopped Nicola Sturgeon from responding to the discussion about changing opinion on Euro – the chair cut it out pretty quickly.
2. Nicola Sturgeon was interrupting Anas Sawar when he was trying to talk about fiscal policy being set by the Bank of England – again the chair cut it out pretty quickly.
3. Ruth Davison getting heated when discussing the issue of doing their homework over joining EU – again she interrupted Nicola Sturgeon and again the chair cut it out quickly
There were a few lesser incidents – namely:
1. Nicola Sturgeon interrupting Anas Sawar when discussing the euro (just after she made the one rule for Labour one rule for the rest comment).
2. Nicola Sturgeon again interrupting Anas Sawar when he was making the pre/post Lisbon treaty point.
3. Ruth Davidon then butting in over Anas Sawar just after that (can’t remember exact context)
4. Ruth Davidson interrupting Nicola Sturgeon about the NATO membership issue.
However these bottom four were really pretty minor and certainly not something which should cause much anguish (and I speak as someone who gets pretty frustrated when politicians start bickering).
As for the crowd being impartial I would agree that there seemed to be more people, or certainly more people who asked questions, who were opposed to independence but it was hardly a massive majority. There were a good number of people clearly pro independence and when those views were voiced they were supported well enough by applause from other audience members.
I would largely agree with the main article that it was Patrick Harvie who was the most rational and worth listening to. That may well be easier as he represents a smaller party with a far more focused (and some may say limited) area of interest whereas the rest need to follow a party line on a wider spectrum of issues. However he, of the four, was the one with the most reasoned and sensible view on what needs to be done between now and the referendum.
After Harvie I though Sawar came out second in terms of presenting the Labour position whilst making some attempt to justify it, and his views. I am not saying he was great by any means, just a lot better than the other two.
I thought both Davidson and Sturgeon came across pretty poorly and offered very little other than repeating high level headline claims which, to date, neither side of the argument (from any party not just their two) have been able to actually substantiate with anything other than ‘it is our opinion’
All in all I think it was a wasted opportunity but I fear this is just one of many that we are going to see over the next two years.
- As I said Dave I will watch it tonight. I have heard quite a few people echoing your comments about the treatment of Nicola Sturgeon however I have also heard some fairly uncomplimentary things about how she conducted herself so one way or the other I am sure it will be illustrating!
- Cheers to you both – will catch it tonight.
- I have heard mixed reports about this debate although most opinions have come from people who are firmly rooted in one camp or the other.
Does anyone know if it is going to be repeated or available via iPlayer as if it is I will try and catch up with it tonight?
Recent comments by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll
- Argyll and Bute Council: Councillor McCuish leads again
I heard (but this could be wrong) that the vote was 18 to 17 which does suggest one absentee meaning the vote carries. An unfortunate vote to miss. However this would still leave an ongoing 18 vs 18 when it comes to full council decisions. This will be interesting and challenge both parties to demonstrate that they are really made up of a collection of independents rather than a party in all but name.
- Argyll and Bute Council: Councillor McCuish leads again
Hmm that makes 18 in oppositon however there are only 36 councillors so in poker terms we would have split pot. I am guessing this isn’t the case so was there maybe a late change of heart by someone?
Oops Ignore this – just seen the comments at the end of the article
- Radically new council group changes all the dynamics: party politics dead in Argyll
Ia m hearing that Roddy McCuish is back as leader with Dick Walsh still leader of the opposition. The new ruling group being along the lines of what is set out in the e-mail above.
- First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
Not sure if I agree with putting fascism and Islam on the same shelf (as it were).
However interestingly, and a little ironically, if there is a massively generalised criticism of the Islamic faith it is its traditional resistance/opposition to multiculturalism – a criticism that could be made of UKIP with little difficulty.
- Walsh to lead all but Lib Dems, Conservatives and George Freeman
‘more honest and upfront’
powered by SEO Super Comments