A few weeks ago Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland
leader of the Scottish National Party and chief of the Yes campaign, went
head-to-head in a debate with Alistair Darling, former Labour cabinet minister,
Tony Blair's Chancellor of the Exchequer and head of the Better Together
tendency urging a No vote on Scottish independence. See here for my review of
that event:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/scottish-independence-debate.html.
It was inevitable that this was not the end of the matter and the two men would
have to face each other again. This second debate has taken place at a crucial
time because the postal polls open tomorrow and on that day some Scots might
begin choosing how to answer the simple question:
Should Scotland be an independent country? It took place last night, see here for
the BBCi recording:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04g1w4s/scotland-decides-salmond-versus-darling.
(This link will only be live for a limited period of time. If a more permanent
one becomes available, I'll edit this article and insert it.) In his opening
statement Mr Salmond spoke of the history of the Scottish independence
movement, how in 1979 they'd failed gain a parliament, something most countries
take for granted, and this led to almost two decades of Tory rule, the Poll Tax
and deindustrialization. After another chance in 1997 they finally got the
Scottish Parliament and this did an enormous amount of good, but it didn't stop
the Bedroom Tax, see:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-bedroom-tax-is-dead.html,
the possible loss of the
Ferguson
shipyard or the basing of Trident WMD on the shores of the Firth of Clyde, all
decisions that came from
Westminster.
Now the Scots have an opportunity to change all that; they should complete the
journey to home rule in three weeks time and vote Yes. Mr Darling said in his
opening statement that the entire concept of Scottish independence is based on
a pipe dream by Alex Salmond; he has no "Plan B" is anything fails to
work out, no proper monetary policy, a rickety economic policy and he asks us
to just trust him. All Darling wants is to build a fairer and more prosperous
society while Salmond wants an independent state no matter what the risks of
the costs. Darling makes it clear that a No victory will not mean no change;
more powers will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. But there is still no
clear answer on what currency
Scotland
will use. What will this mean for jobs? For debt? For savings? For pensions?
Once again Darling used the slogan "There's no turning back."
The next part of the debate was based on BBC's
Question Time programme, in which the
studio audience get to pose the questions to the panel. The first one was about
the economy and the question was: "Would we be financially safe in an
independent
Scotland.
(A lady called Lily Donaldson has been in touch with me; she has written an
article on what the referendum means for Scottish people financially, see:
http://www.money.co.uk/article/1010373-scottish-independence-what-a-yes-vote-means-for-your-finances.htm.)
Darling answered by once more bringing up the question of Salmond's currency
ideas.
Scotland
currently uses the Pound Sterling which is issued to the
United
Kingdom via the Bank of England, but it
belongs to the
UK
only. Strangely enough Darling decided to mention his handling of the financial
crash of 2008 and lamented the fate of
Iceland
for taking a different course. This indulgence into self-congratulation was a
mistake on his part, as well as a lie.
Iceland
is one of the few nations on Earth in economic recovery thanks to Johanna
Sigurthadottir's decision to raise her middle finger to the IMF and jail the
bankers. The lack of applause at the end of this speech, even by the No
contingent selected for the audience, echoed loudly. There was some concern
over
North Sea oil because Darling says that it's
something of a confidence bubble with less than half the probable revenue
forecasted by an independent expert than the oil industry boasts. However
Salmond disputed this forecast and quoted a separate independent prospector.
Darling restated his favourite point about the enormous practical and moral
difficulties of Salmond's notion of a shared pound, like the Bank of England
being in a foreign country and so could not set interest rates etc. Salmond
opposes joining the Euro... or says he does... He's opposed to a completely new
currency, even though many other Yes campers support that idea. Darling says
then that the only other option is for Scotland to use the pound as a foreign
imposed unit of exchanged without any free national jurisdiction, like how
Panama uses the US Dollar; this would be a disaster. Darling also warned of the
risk of the public service deficit an independent
Scotland
would have to take on. How would the
UK's
national debt be shared out? How would the national product? How would pension
funds? A shared currency in which both nations benefit equally only works as
part of a political and economic union. Salmond accused Darling of being
undemocratic and that
Scotland
doesn't need permission to use the pound; the
Sterling
is an international tradable currency. Darling even admitted that in as many words. It would also relieve
Scotland
of its unjust burden of the national debt, a debt built up by Darling's
policies as Chancellor. Interestingly Darling delivered another falsehood when
he said: "the UK Government controls the Bank of England"- I think
it's the other way round.
The topic then moved on to health. Salmond stepped out from
behind his podium and addressed the audience questioner by name, a method he
used several time that evening. He declared his intention to keep health
services in public hands and properly funded, with complete Scottish government
control, both in policy and financial terms. Darling agreed with him that this
should happen, even without devolution; but he reiterated that only a healthy
economy with
Scotland
as part of the
UK
would have the resources necessary. One of the most sensible and inspiring
moments of the debate took place when a woman in the audience accused Darling
of being a hypocrite because of the Blair government's enthusiasm for NHS
privatization; she's absolutely right because I've has to witness the process
from the inside, see:
http://hpanwo-hpwa.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/allyson-pollock-at-tedx.html.
"I hope you feel Aneurin Bevan sitting on your shoulder!" she said,
and received a well-deserved round of applause. Salmond didn't miss that chink
in his armour and followed up. Darling was then left with the unenviable task
of defending the indefensible: the
UK
government's track record on the NHS, a burden that a Yes vote would free
Scotland
from. Salmond asked pointedly: "By 2020, how many Scottish children will
fall into poverty because of government welfare cuts?" Also he questioned
Westminster's
Job Programme, that he sees as nothing more than an imperialistic slave labour
scheme. Here he is referring to what is known by that magnificent new
Orwellianism
austerity. As with the
NHS, Darling could do nothing except flail about in the dark; Salmond knows all
his weak spots.
Eventually the subject moved on to Trident, something which
I myself have covered extensively, see:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/replacing-trident.html.
Since the 1960's
Britain's
maritime nuclear deterrent has been based at Gareloch on the Firth of Clyde,
specifically at the Coulport weapon storage area and the Faslane submarine base
(these locations are not marked on all maps). This is seen by Scottish
nationalists as effectively a human shield for
Westminster;
it's one of the SNP's core policies to close down the Trident complex. The
UK
government would then have to relocate it to
England,
Wales or
Northern
Ireland, if it wished to maintain independent
nuclear armaments at all. If it does it will cost fifteen to twenty billion
pounds just for initial establishment. A No supporter in the audience made the
point that Trident involves over eight thousand Scottish jobs; however the
removal of Trident from the Firth of Clyde would free up the oil industry to be
more active in that area, which could make up the shortfall.
Scotland
plans to join NATO after independence and Darling said that this would be
impossible for a nation opposed to nuclear weapons. Yet this was another lie;
most of the countries in NATO are not nuclear armed. Salmond would make Faslane
headquarters of the Scottish defence forces, this would include a fleet naval
surface combatants, something which the Royal Navy in
Scotland
doesn't have. There was a vox populi segment during the break in proceedings in
which one of the people interviewed was a crofter from Shetland. However, is
Shetland even part of
Scotland?
Stuart Hill doesn't think so, see:
http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/programme-98-podcast-stuart-hill.html.
Both Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond agreed that whatever the outcome of the
vote, there should be no recriminations or divisions in the aftermath and the
country should continue to move together as one, independent or not.
This second debate between the leaders of the Yes and No was
totally different to the first. The tables were completely turned, Salmond had
Darling for breakfast; and almost three quarters of viewers thought so too, see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28929057.
The No chief was incoherent and repetitive and the audience became contemptuous
and bored with him. Salmond though was passionate, positive and warm. The
opinion polls have narrowed to the point where they two sides are almost
overlapping, and the undecideds are being steadily mopped up. The TV trial last
night could well push the Yes contingency into the lead in this crucial last
few weeks before the referendum, see:
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-independent-country-1#line,
Since I began writing about this subject I've found myself becoming more and
more ambivalent and confused over it. My head and my heart have steadily
diverged over this issue and today they are preaching very different messages. As
I've said in the background article above, I fear very much that Scottish
independence is nothing more than a swindle to trick the rebellious
UK
into becoming part of the EU superstate, a stepping-stone to totalitarian
global government. On an intellectual level, and I'm saying this as a Welshman,
I recommend that Scotland remains a part of the one of the principle bastions
currently resisting that agenda, the sentiment of British unity, and I urge the
people of Scotland to vote No. Nevertheless I am not a flag-waving British
unionist and I never have been. I hear my Celtic soul calling to me and I can't
ignore it. Two thousand years of history cannot easily be put aside for
something as trivial as a "good reason". I think if the Yes camp wins
in the upcoming referendum I will be delighted, contrary to my own rational
advice. Along with a sense of sentimental vindication will be excitement and
curiosity at the prospect of something extraordinary happening in politics. A
Yes victory would have a lot of novelty value in a world where change is
regarded with the utmost dread and everything is geared towards maintaining the
mundane and mediocre. The upheaval it generates could bring so much genuine
progress, even negating my concerns over the EU agenda. I have a feeling I may
change my mind even further in the days and weeks ahead. So my advice to the
people of
Scotland
on the 18th of September is to vote No... I mean Yes... I mean No... I mean
Yes...
