Comment posted BBC Scotland independence debate by Dr Douglas McKenzie.
Hans: May I just repeat my admiration for you bringing facts to the table to be debated (even if I often disagree either on the facts or on their interpretation).
To your last paragraph:
currency: pound (at least in the short term)
EU membership: yes
regulation: more than has been the case but still a light touch.
possible impact: difficult to define but WTO and EU rules should mean minimal change.
Recent comments by Dr Douglas McKenzie
- Rustle with Russell
More utter rubbish from Lynda Henderson. Have you actually spoken to Bob Allen? Whoever told you the story sold you a pup and in your arrogance you cannot admit to be wrong so you make up this story that he was persuaded not to resign.Your position is completely untenable.
- Russell back in the bathtub, now trying to sink Keith Brown’s boat
I’m afraid you condemn yourself by your own words. I don’t think that anyone reading what you have written here and the language you have used would conclude anything other than that you have a deep dislike for Mr Russell and that dislike is leading you to basically lose all sense of either proportion or impartiality. It doesn’t matter how well (or otherwise) you know Mr Russell you are clearly exercised by your interpretation of his actions and it is leading you well beyond the pale in what I would consider fair comment.This vendetta against Mr Russell and the SNP is destroying FA’s credibility and I have to confess that I’m seriously considering whether or not to continue reading FA (which will cheer Malcolm up if nothing else). I for one am becoming increasingly disenchanted by the constant negativity and sheer nastiness that has crept into this blog. I say that with a lot more sorrow than anger because I think that FA could have been great and indeed still could but there has to be a degree of balance, civility and indeed humour. All we are getting here is bile and it is causing me heartburn.
- Russell back in the bathtub, now trying to sink Keith Brown’s boat
To be honest, this post clearly shows that you are speaking from your personal dislike of Mr Russell rather than an unbiased analysis of the man. Phrases such as “publicity hungry coward” are well beyond what is reasonable comment. - Russell back in the bathtub, now trying to sink Keith Brown’s boat
You don’t seem to understand the separation of a MSP’s duty to his or her constituency and their responsibilities as a Government Minister.Yet again, this is another instance where a member of the Government can do no right: speak up and be condemned as “desperate” or stay silent and be accused of not serving your constituents’ interests.
It is just as well that Mr Russell has broad shoulders!
- Atlantic Islands Centre for Luing: biggest investment in island’s history
Well done Luing – an inspiration to all of Argyll’s communities.
powered by SEO Super Comments
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s on the BBC iPlayer
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jlfqh/The_Big_Debate_Choosing_Scotlands_Future/ – downloading now – will watch later
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cheers to you both – will catch it tonight.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You will find it an illustrating experience in how to completely distort a “debate” by allowing an audience, obviously hugely politically unbalanced, free reign to attack one of the speakers with “questions” which in fact were actually statements of attack while the “chair” allowed two other speakers to shout down and interrupt any attempt the speaker under attack made to answer any of these “questions” put to her.
I have no idea how Nicola Sturgeon kept her temper. I would have walked off.
This is exactly as we can expect for the next two years as the union uses all the powers at its disposal to convince the thick and the feart in Scotland that the people of Scotland are, in the whole wide world, uniquely stupid and incapable of running their own affairs.
We knew this was coming. More and more people know what the game is.
In the long run it is counter productive. People do not like being taken advantage of and when the penny drops, as it will,the rebound against the BBC and MSM will be significant
Has anybody noticed that Johann Lamont is not used anymore since she got sunk at the last debate.
Try this for a more forensic account of the shambles
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/sifting-the-wheat-from-the-chaff/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
p.s.
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have to say I thought Sarwar’s contribution was about banal as you can get.
Read Rev Stuart Campbell’s take on it. Much closer I think
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/sifting-the-wheat-from-the-chaff/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How utterly laughable to read your complaint that the audience were “obviously hugely politically unbalanced”
Where there was imbalance was in the make up of the panel . Of Scotland’s four main political parties , three are firmly opposed to separation , therefore any reasonable person would expect the panel to contain three Unionists v one Nationalist .
Thinking back to the referendum on devolution this was the ratio used to determine the make up of any BBC panel one pro the status quo and three pro devolution .
That the audience were clearly 2 to 1 against separation is no different than the views of society in Scotland and Dave McEwan Hill should start getting used to the fact that his is a minority viewpoint
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why are non lawyers so agitated about the legalities of Scotand and the rUk being in or out of the EU?
International law is a very different animal to domestic legislation. At the end of the day what happens will be political not legal as it will be subject to negotiation. Provided there are no crimes against humanity or nuclear weapons development there are no international sanctions!
If Scotland (or the rUK) doesn’t like the terms it can do a Norway.
All this talk about England being our main trading partner is very interesting. An examination of Nordic trading partners in the 1980s and 90s indicated that the UK was one of the top three trading partners of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. They seem to have done rather well since the UK’s precentage share of their trade reduced.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: BBC Scotland independence debate | Future of Scotland
Well, the author certainly doesn’t like Nicola Sturgeon. You seemed to watch a different “debate” than I did. I agree with you about Patrick Harvie, he was the best on show, but much of the rest of this article is simplistic rubbish.
Just one point to emphasis this, you say, “Sturgeon … said that Scots would probably be around £500 a year better off in an independent Scotland … Host Isabel Fraser didn’t pick up on the £500 per person ploy and neither did Ms Sturgeon’s opposition.”
Well, it’s NOT a ploy, it is a legitimate comment based on the Westminster Government’s OWN figures. I recommend you read the annual GERS report. Scotland gives 9.6% of UK taxation income, with only 8.4% of the population, and gets back 9.3% The difference is 500 pounds for every man, woman, and child. So, NOT a ploy, just a fact.
Isabel is a competent interviewer, but let the panel get away with talking over almost every answer from Nicola Sturgeon, allowed ad hominem attacks from the audience without allowing a rebuttal, and lost control of the discussion.
Final point. You said that this was a ‘live’ show – no it wasn’t. It was recorded that afternoon and edited down from 80 minutes to 60 minutes. I wonder what was edited out by the BBC, which has shown itself to be less than objective in the last five years whenever the SNP to Independence is concerned. (People who were in the audience claim that the broadcast version down played the support Nicola Sturgeon got from the audience.)
I recommend that readers look at it for themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The SNP should demand a full copy of the debate for analysis
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The unionists in the media are playing a very dangerous game. If the people, including those presently inclined to the status quo, think they are being taken for idiots, the unionists will pay heavily.
As a vast proportion of the most readily used unionist ploys are easily exposed as nonsense. If we use the time well between now and 2014 and expose the banality of much of it result will be a forgone conclusion
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Whilst the big party politicians sniped trivia at one another did not wee Patrick Harvie do well|?
He was the only one to express a meaningful vision of independence – a country where banking reform would replace the values of the City of London with those of a fairer and more responsible society. In a few words he said it all.
Westminster, like Washington, is en route to disaster, both so enmeshed with the banking elite that they cannot, or will not, consider the alternative. Independence must mean financial independence if it is to mean anything at all and as ninety nine per cent of us want banking reform why on earth does the SNP duck the issue? It should be one of the star prizes of the entire campaign.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The SNP is not “ducking the issue”. It has pretty robust ideas about Banking reform and has been watching the exemplary way the fast expanding Airdrie Savings Bank does its business and how effective is Australian banking regulation. Not that the media will tell you any of his. They only report SNP activities they think they can spin against ( like the minimum alcohol measure).
However we have absolutely no power to do anything about banking reform at the moment.
We have to be independent first and unless wecan guarantee that and guarantee that the first independent Scottish Government is an SNP one to make policy pronouncments on this issue would be a little premature.
The referendum is not about the policies an independent Scottish government will adopt but merely about providing an independent Scottish government.
The unionists are trying to confuse the issue by shouting about policies for this that and the other for four or five years from now.
Have you – or anybody else – got any idea, for instance, what the policies of the UK government will be four or five years from now?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not only are you ducking the issue, you aren’t even recognising there is a problem. In January you fell out with Professor John Kay because he described your plans to reduce corporation tax as fantasy; a comment that Salmond seems to have taken personally. Professor Kay’s advice would have been to split the risk-taking away from the rest of it. Kay is now described as having served (past tense) on Salmond’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Scotland is not that much different to England with regard to her dependence on the financial sector. 10% of her GDP and 100,000 jobs, plus a further 100,000 indirectly, come from there. Some £720bn in assets are managed here. Scotland also employs 27% of all UK Life & Pensions personnel. We manage £740bn of life assurance and have the largest UK companies based here: AEGON UK, Standard Life, Scottish Widows, Bright Grey and we have the Pru & Aviva with large businesses here.
Roughly £1.5Tn of assets is an awful lot.
Basel requirements apply to Life Offices as well as banks. The risks are very similar and you’ll find lots of bright young things manipulating complex interest derivatives inside life offices. Present Value accounting was first applied to insurers, as far as I recall. They were discounting premium income against risk assets such as equities at 8% rather than sovereign debt … that should get you worried.
It was actually an insurer, of a sort, which brought the current mess upon us. Scotland is particularly exposed. Its also a small market of 5m sitting on the doorstep of 60m people who nearly all buy insurance of some description from us. Think about that and ponder this comment from a Financial Services CEO: “Too much of the debate (on independence) is currently founded on assertion and counter assertion. What is needed by our industry are clear answers to questions on currency, EU membership, regulation and the possible impact on the UK as a single market for goods and services.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hans: May I just repeat my admiration for you bringing facts to the table to be debated (even if I often disagree either on the facts or on their interpretation).
To your last paragraph:
currency: pound (at least in the short term)
EU membership: yes
regulation: more than has been the case but still a light touch.
possible impact: difficult to define but WTO and EU rules should mean minimal change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wots up Doc here is a good clip for you http://youtu.be/0kD79gubAm8
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t suppose anybody expressed an opinion on whether or not they would put car ferries on the Dunoon Gourock route
The SNP had a policy that they would but then went back on it. If the independent Scottish Government is going to have different policies does that mean they will bring back the ferries, or if that government is going to be SNP does it mean it will not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Perhaps ‘anybody’ would think that there were already car ferries on the Dunoon – Gourock route, albeit to termini that were both five minutes by car from the actual town centres.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nobody forced the SNP to make their promise. Our MSP Michael Russell obviously does get confused between the two routes. If you listned to him on the radio it sounded as if the ferries the SNP had promised were for the Western route!
Obviously you don’t use the ferries on a daily basis. Five minutes each side does not sound like much (it is actually often a good deal more) but that is 50minutes per working week.
Over the course of a year that amounts to over a full working week extra spent commuting.
On top of that you used to be able to get onto the first boat, frequently that is now not the case. There are extra fuel costs, and a mere £73 to pay for a book of tickets.
The net effect is that Dunoon, in the top two vulnerable towns, just got a great deal less attractive to anybody considering commuting by car. This was pointed out by somebody at Queens Hall public meeting in November.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David McEHill is fortunate to have a private line to SNP policy on the currency. A study of the Airdrie Savings Bank and the principles of full reserve banking would indeed be an encouraging start – if it is the case.
There are two issues here – the first is the best currency option (and there’s no banking reform without your own currency) for an independent Scotland. There is the pre 2008 banking, euro and sovereign debt scenario – and then there is the best option for any responsible government looking ahead to the potential collapse of the euro and the entire fractional reserve system. The latter will make Greece look a relatively minor blip on the economic radar, and printing money – the present universal solution, is no answer – vide Weimar and Zimbabwe.
What is needed is a think-tank which can look beyond tinkering with the present system, beyond rearranging the deckchairs on the SS Sterling. Why are we not talking openly about the Merk as a Scottish parallel currency alongside Sterling – backed by the Scottish government? We could use it to fund public assets and infrastructure free of debt and inflation. Outrageous? Not as ridiculous as our labour and resources tied hand and foot by ‘affordability’ whilst our society is destroyed by egregious and institutionalised moneylenders.
Take forty minutes to look at the 3 part video below and start to question the dogma we are still being fed by governments controlled by big business, big banks and big bureaucracy –all too big to fail…. and then Mr McEHill ask yourself is our – yes our, SNP doing enough?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8VjvswhYVk
Like or Dislike:
0 
0