tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/alistair-darling-11787/articlesAlistair Darling – The Conversation2014-12-02T13:59:05Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/348812014-12-02T13:59:05Z2014-12-02T13:59:05ZOsborne seeks route to election victory as UK teeters towards a new economic crisis<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65931/original/image-20141201-20565-15h9jhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hi-Vis and hard hat; Osborne into the breach.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/13980759924/in/photolist-nir3QU-ni7waD-ni7qLU-nkaiKH-ngmsbA-ni7pLC-nkaidk-ngmrWC-9TZ2AW-9oSLsd-7iaxz7-c9fey5-fLiK9m-pSz6jV-pSza3B-84APHQ-q9ZjVg-8crMr6-bEPUFR-8kfTLj-7Zsyyr-brV2fS-brV22W-brV2pA-brV1Ts-brV1Ls-brV2WA-bEPUtX-8SgJLZ-oNU1pL-jonjpU-8S2isp-8S2isn-joj6wp-jDk173-8cv88S-jom8Mm-jDiNBv-jDjYxG-8S2isk-8cv8zJ-8kuL3E-bHCYKT-9oNDor-9oNDGt-azJGYW-azJHw1-azG3DF-azG5te-azG3Xp">Number 10</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer will aim to deliver an election-winning financial package on Wednesday. But he will effectively have one arm tied behind his back. </p>
<p>It wasn’t meant to turn out this way. In <a href="http://www.totalpolitics.com/print/speeches/35193/george-osborne-mais-lecture-a-new-economic-model.thtml">his Mais lecture, given in February 2010</a> George Osborne claimed: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The recovery will only be sustainable if it is accompanied by an internal and external rebalancing of our economy: in other words a higher savings rate, more business investment and rising net exports. So we will maintain the AAA credit rating. We will increase saving, business investment and exports as a share of GDP.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So far so bad.</p>
<p>As Osborne prepares his Autumn Statement the public finances aren’t in good shape and deficit reduction has stalled. The coalition has borrowed even more than Alastair Darling planned. Income tax receipts are considerably worse than forecast. Government debt as a share of GDP is above the EU average. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21554311">The AAA credit rating is gone</a>. </p>
<p>There has been no rebalancing away from financial services to manufacturing; there has been <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/8401022/Budget-2011-Chancellor-George-Osbornes-speech-in-full.html">no march of the makers</a>, no sustained move towards a trade surplus and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30205565">investment fell recently</a>. Savings are down. Plus, there is another government-induced <a href="https://theconversation.com/deconstructing-our-hopes-for-self-regulating-house-prices-34335">unsustainable housing bubble</a>, with house price to earnings ratios at the same level they were in 2005, and rising. </p>
<p>The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) can’t raise interest rates because of fears it would wipe out mortgage holders and probably require more bank rescues. The UK is unprepared for a shock. But it is inevitably coming. They turn up every seven or eight years – and the next one is soon due, with the MPC lacking the room <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11013715">to cut rates as we did in 2008</a>. Things are looking ugly.</p>
<h2>Austerity errors</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/30/fall-uk-living-standards-deeper-ons-tuc">Living standards have fallen</a> more than in any previous parliament in recorded history. Jobs are up but real wages are down around 8% since the coalition took office. Real wages are up for those in continuous employment but sharply down for those who obtained their jobs since 2010. The combination of the underemployed and the unemployed means there is a massive amount of labour market slack, equivalent to an unemployment rate of at least 8%, pushing down on wages. In addition a further 1.5m million workers from Eastern Europe already have National Insurance numbers and their potential entry is keeping wage growth down. The average person doesn’t feel any recovery.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65957/original/image-20141201-20565-75te97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65957/original/image-20141201-20565-75te97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65957/original/image-20141201-20565-75te97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65957/original/image-20141201-20565-75te97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65957/original/image-20141201-20565-75te97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65957/original/image-20141201-20565-75te97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65957/original/image-20141201-20565-75te97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65957/original/image-20141201-20565-75te97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Crisis banker. Mervyn King.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/imfphoto/8655576649/in/photolist-dH7jZF-adRp6C-ebS6oa-hWB2Ar-hWB2S8-hWCMwc-hWxsjf-hWxst3-7YvVvi-7YvVAZ-5AQPMk-6TbYhK-dxPKeg-a9jKvA-a9gVGa-a9jHsw-a9gVyx-a9jJJ5-a9jLHy-a9jHdm-a9gVfK-a9jLaN-a9gX6z-8Xx94i-81rvf9-BiGE-9iF8e7-a9jKHE-6TbYcg-fFQuv5-9deYWH-aRUHXn-6s3b56-6TfYMm-eYow58-g4b6e-6TfYGd-dQUNCY-6TfYiG-6TfYD9-6TfYn9-6TbXTF-6TbX38-6TfY3G-6TfY93-6TfXyE-dwbVFu-6TbXiv-aGddXD-aFo43G">IMF</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The UK economy experienced a once-in-a-hundred-year shock that lowered GDP rapidly over a period of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10613201">five quarters in 2008 and early 2009</a>. Then the economy started to recover steadily, at the same pace the economy has traditionally recovered in all prior recessions at least over the last century. Economists sometimes call this <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/24/mark-carney-economy-interest-escape-velocity">“escape velocity”</a>. Then along came George Osborne and the coalition with their reckless austerity, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/10882933/Mervyn-King-I-feel-liberated-Im-learning-to-foxtrot.html">aided and abetted by Mervyn King</a>, talking down the the UK economy and falsely claiming it was bankrupt and like Greece, Spain and Portugal, which don’t have their own central banks or currency. Hey presto… the recovery disappeared. </p>
<p>Business and consumer confidence, that fragile factor that Keynes called <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n22/john-gray/we-simply-do-not-know">“animal spirits”</a>, collapsed at the end of 2010 and growth stalled. Raising VAT and slashing capital expenditure were obvious mistakes that were large contributors to the subsequent three years of flat-lining. </p>
<p>Eventually, after easing off on austerity, the economy started to grow again and in the past year or so has grown at approximately the same rate it was growing when the coalition inherited the economy. This has been the third-worst recovery in 650 years behind only the Black Death and <a href="http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/ssb/history.html">the South Sea Bubble</a>. This has been the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/britain-has-taken-longer-to-recover-from-recession-than-at-any-time-since-the-south-sea-bubble-9645218.html">slowest recovery in 300 years</a>. </p>
<p>Worryingly, the UK is slowing again. Despite claims to the contrary by the coalition, the UK isn’t the fastest-growing country in the G7. The US grew faster than the UK in four of the past five quarters, two of the past two and one of the past one. It is true that the UK grew faster over the past 12 months, but that is because the US experienced a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-05/winter-amplifies-u-s-economy-s-seasonal-swing-chart-of-the-day.html">terrible winter at the beginning of 2014</a>. </p>
<p>UK <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/11/20/uk-cpi-idUKKCN0J413D20141120">manufacturing is looking fragile</a>. Investment has stalled. Consumers continue to run down their savings <a href="https://theconversation.com/david-camerons-red-light-zone-is-closer-to-home-than-he-thinks-34333">and take on debt</a>. The balance of trade is worsening. Business and consumer sentiment has slowed. Wage growth shows no sign of picking up and the housing market seems to be past its peak. </p>
<p>Apparently, the Autumn Statement will add some <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/11263192/Autumn-Statement-George-Osborne-announces-2bn-to-save-NHS.html">much needed money to the NHS</a>, which disproportionately helps the old, who tend to vote. Austerity failed and there are masses more cuts to come. And now for the good news…</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34881/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Blanchflower does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer will aim to deliver an election-winning financial package on Wednesday. But he will effectively have one arm tied behind his back. It wasn’t meant to turn out this…David Blanchflower, Professor of Economics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347242014-11-26T16:15:48Z2014-11-26T16:15:48ZScottish income tax control needn’t raise UK borrowing costs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65604/original/image-20141126-4244-qjozsy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is former Better Together leader right about consequences of income tax devolution?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.chrisboland.com">Chris Boland</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Alistair Darling, <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ab4f226c-7197-11e4-b178-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fab4f226c-7197-11e4-b178-00144feabdc0.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=#axzz3K3mPJqKK">writing in</a> the Financial Times, warned this week that the full devolution of income tax to Scotland would increase UK borrowing costs and expose Scotland to the destabilising ups and downs of tax revenues during changing economic times. With the <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot/">Smith Commission</a> expected to <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scotland-set-for-full-control-of-income-tax-1-3613434">announce such a plan</a> on November 26, are these concerns justified?</p>
<p>As ever, the answer is maybe. When the international markets lend money to the UK government, the rates are based on how much tax revenues they think the UK will generate in order to pay it back. A poorly designed system of income-tax devolution would change this calculus and lead them to expect a smaller tax base that is less under the UK government’s control. If so, they would then demand a higher premium for their finance. </p>
<p>But income tax raised from Scotland (<a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888/5">estimated at</a> £11bn in 2012-13) does not even come close to funding Scottish government and Scottish local authority expenditures (<a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888/7">estimated at</a> £39bn in 2012-13). So if the Scottish government were funded by a combination of Scottish income taxes and a grant to make up the difference that was fully under UK government control (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/what-is-barnett-formula-how-work-scotland-wales-northern-ireland">the Barnett formula</a>), then the security held by international markets over UK government tax revenues could be unaffected. The UK government could simply reduce Scotland’s funding to ensure that it still paid its share.</p>
<h2>The fix</h2>
<p>A sensible system would bring the equivalent tax revenues in the rest of the UK into line with the Scottish system. If Scottish income tax is levied explicitly to pay for Scottish public services, then the income tax raised in England should be for English public services even if this is to be administered by the UK government rather than an English parliament. It should not be the case that Scottish income taxes are used to fund Scottish public services while English income taxes are used by the UK government to repay UK public debt.</p>
<p>And international investors are not daft. They will be aware that the security of their lending depends on the overall size of the UK government’s tax resources and spending commitments. So as the UK government loses Scottish income taxes, it also loses responsibility for funding some Scottish public services. This means that the claims of international markets can be left unaffected. </p>
<p>Scotland will meanwhile continue to contribute to non-devolved tax revenues including VAT and corporation tax. If the UK government uses these revenues to fund UK expenditures such as defence, foreign affairs and national debt repayments – but not public services in England – then Scotland will be continuing to play its part.</p>
<h2>The economy factor</h2>
<p>What about the claim that full devolution of income tax exposes Scotland to the destabilising peaks and troughs of the economy? It is true that negative economic shocks in Scotland will lower income tax revenues and put pressure on public sector finances – especially if welfare is partially devolved. </p>
<p>This is what currently happens in the UK as a whole, and it is dealt with by borrowing. The solution for Scotland is for the Scottish government to have access to its share of what the UK government borrows in leaner economic periods (“countercyclical borrowing,” as economists call it). </p>
<p>This would mean that the UK government would borrow in response to negative shocks and distribute to Scotland, the other devolved administrations, and to itself (wearing its “English government” hat). This would take place according to some pre-specified formula that should compensate for the automatic fall in devolved tax revenues and the automatic rise in devolved expenditures that has been caused by the downturn in question. </p>
<p>This borrowing would be repaid with the taxes that are reserved for the UK government, to which Scotland will have fully contributed. Scotland could also borrow on its own account for public investment in Scotland, but borrowing for recessions should be done at the UK level (the fact that the equivalent is not done in the eurozone is the source of many of that area’s problems). </p>
<p>So Alastair Darling is correct to highlight concerns with rushed devolution proposals, but it’s not correct to say that income tax cannot be devolved in full without leading to the problems that he outlined. A sensibly designed proposal could achieve the full devolution of income tax and welfare.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34724/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Comerford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Alistair Darling, writing in the Financial Times, warned this week that the full devolution of income tax to Scotland would increase UK borrowing costs and expose Scotland to the destabilising ups and…David Comerford, Research Fellow in Economics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/317952014-09-17T19:30:54Z2014-09-17T19:30:54ZIn brutal battle, Alistair Darling has done the best job possible<p>When the television debates on Scottish independence were announced in the early summer, many observers suggested that Alistair Darling would be a lamb to the slaughter, with Alex Salmond playing the wolf. Salmond, after all, is renowned for his unforgiving political style, ably dodging tricky questions and asking quite a few of his own. </p>
<p>Darling wasn’t quite written off as a meek and mild observer in the independence campaign: no man who served as chancellor of the exchequer through the worst economic downturn in living memory could be accused of that. But he certainly wasn’t expected to beat Salmond on the stump or in debates; he was perhaps too genteel, too Westminster, too aloof. Even his surname reminds many of us of the ineffectual character from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096548/">Blackadder Goes Forth</a>, dodging danger and responsibility at every turn. </p>
<p>That was an underestimate, however. After the two men’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/05/alex-salmond-alistair-darling-scotland-debate-independence">first debate</a>, even Alex Salmond looked stunned to have been given such a hiding. </p>
<p>Notwithstanding a more chaotic and belligerent <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-salmond-strikes-back-in-tv-debate-but-will-it-be-a-game-changer-30892">second debate</a>, Darling has shown a steely determination throughout the campaign. That has surprised some commentators and viewers, but has also confirmed to many of us what we already knew about him: he was and remains a force to be reckoned with.</p>
<h2>Good times, bad times</h2>
<p>Before entering Parliament in 1987, Darling made his living as many politicians do, as a lawyer. He won the Edinburgh Central seat at the 1987 general election, the year of Thatcher’s third election victory, and served his time on the Labour party backbenches until the May 1997 win under the leadership of Blair. </p>
<p>He entered the cabinet as chief secretary to the treasury, before moving to become secretary of state for social security in 1998 – both solid jobs for a promising up-and-comer within the party. Until 2007, Darling then held a series of important but middle-ranking ministerial jobs – transport, minister for Scotland and then secretary of state for trade and industry. With the arrival of Gordon Brown in No 10 Downing Street, there was a vacancy at No 11 and Darling moved in. </p>
<p>Almost immediately, he faced a devil of a job when the American sub-prime market collapsed. Gone, suddenly, were the boom times; instead, there was a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6996136.stm">run on Northern Rock</a>, other banks <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8914000/8914062.stm">came within hours of collapse</a> and a cataclysmic economic collapse seemed imminent. </p>
<p>Not a job for the faint-hearted. But Darling stayed true to his and his party’s principles. He indisputably kept a steady hand in deeply uncertain times, whether or not you agree with the government’s precise approach to the crisis. His overall handling of it was generally good, and at the very least, he managed to avoid making a bad situation worse – perhaps all that could be asked of anyone in such dire circumstances.</p>
<h2>Steady hand</h2>
<p>Darling remained at the treasury until the 2010 general election removed the party from power. After leaving government, he returned to the backbenches until the Scottish referendum details were announced – and in June 2012 he became chair of the Better Together campaign. </p>
<p>Throughout the referendum, Darling has worked closely with colleagues from both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. That has earned him more than his fair share of criticism from the Yes camp, but is surely necessary in such circumstances. </p>
<p>He has once again served as a steady hand, bringing his economic expertise to bear time and time again, persistently asking awkward questions of Salmond and trying masterfully to dismantle the jingoism of the Yes campaign – while they in return cast him and his campaign as pessimistic traitors to the Scottish dream. </p>
<h2>A place in history</h2>
<p>So, what will Darling be doing once the voting is over and the reflection can begin? Regardless of the result, he will be considered to have basically done a good job, a solid job, a valiant job. If Scotland remains part of the UK, he would almost certainly become a member of the House of Lords in the not-too-distant future. In the event of a No vote, the timing would depend on whether he decided to stand as an MP in the 2015 general election for his current seat, Edinburgh South. </p>
<p>Would he stand in the Scottish parliament? I don’t think so. As the leader of Better Together, he clearly has a personal link to the wider union. He was also born in London. In the event of a Yes vote, his integrity would be shot to hell if he decided to join a parliament he fought so hard to resist. And even in the event of a No vote, a move to Holyrood seems unlikely. He’s made his career at Westminster and even a Devo-Max parliament won’t rival Westminster’s power. I think he will see out his career in Westminster, where he has spent nearly 30 years.</p>
<p>If the referendum does yield a Yes vote, it will not have been for want of trying on Darling’s part. As with his time as chancellor, he has been thrust into a difficult situation and has acted with poise and professionalism to make the best of a tricky situation. As a Scot himself, he cannot find it easy to be painted as against Scotland or somehow lacking confidence in Scotland’s capacity as a nation. </p>
<p>He has worked with political friend and foe to defend the Union, which he believes is still best for both Scotland and the rest of the UK. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29223389">The polls</a> remain too close to call or slightly in favour of No – and he managed more than once to give Alex Salmond and the Yes campaign a bloody nose along the way.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31795/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Victoria Honeyman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When the television debates on Scottish independence were announced in the early summer, many observers suggested that Alistair Darling would be a lamb to the slaughter, with Alex Salmond playing the wolf…Victoria Honeyman, Lecturer in British Politics, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/315422014-09-11T05:14:06Z2014-09-11T05:14:06ZScotland Decides ’14: if No wins, what happens next?<p>Will the heady blend of <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/cameron-and-miliband-to-miss-pmqs-to-join-indyref-campaign.1410261253">Westminster love-bombing</a>, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11086667/Pensions-giant-Standard-Life-threatens-transfer-to-England-if-Scotland-votes-for-independence.html">ominous corporate warnings</a> and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11084414/Saltire-flies-above-Downing-Street.html">a saltire flag over Downing Street</a> be enough to persuade the Scots to come back into the fold? We have already looked at what will happen <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-if-yes-wins-what-happens-next-31254">if they vote Yes</a>. Now we we ask our panel what would will happen if they opt for No. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Karly Kehoe, senior lecturer in history, Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>If Scotland votes No, there will definitely be another referendum. You can’t have half the population saying they want independence and expect them to disappear. The timing would depend on how Westminster responds to the result. Scotland must be given a genuine form of devo max. If it just brushes it aside and makes token gestures, the second referendum would come a lot sooner. </p>
<p>Next year’s general election will be crucial here. If it produces a coalition government between the Tories and UKIP, that would be devastating for Scotland. But even if Westminster does do a good job of reaching out, which I would optimistically say they would, I still think a second referendum is highly likely. </p>
<p>I suspect the aftermath won’t be as divisive as some people think. Scotland will heal itself. Most people I have spoken to have been very understanding and respectful of other people’s positions. There would be significant disappointment among Yes voters, of course, but they may well be more politicised as a result. The debate has been very empowering for young people. It might even produce the next political leader. </p>
<p>Should Salmond step down after a No victory? Of course he shouldn’t. I am not an SNP supporter, but he would have still managed to mobilise a Yes campaign that has done what nobody thought was possible. The person who should resign, even after a No vote, is Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont. She has been completely ineffective. </p>
<p>I feel sorry for Alistair Darling. He’s been so unsuccessful. Sometimes I listen to him and think, do you even believe what you are saying? The problem with Darling and Gordon Brown is that you can’t have people fronting the No campaign who are intimately tied to the legacy of being <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/">voted out of office in the UK</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/overview/html/scotland.stm">losing badly to the SNP in Scotland</a>. They needed to find young blood. If they limp over the line, they certainly shouldn’t feel victorious. There wouldn’t be much reason to celebrate. People needed to hear something new and they didn’t. </p>
<p><strong>Neil Blain, Director of Media Research Institute, University of Stirling</strong></p>
<p>It’s not all love from the south in the last couple of days. Simon Heffer <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2750071/Why-don-t-tell-Scots-shove-In-personal-view-Mail-disagrees-SIMON-HEFFER-says-fear-English-people-think.html">is at it again</a> in the Daily Mail (“300 years of subsidy” has become his catchphrase), telling the Scots to get lost. If the Mail is all too predictable, you could find Alex Thomson on Channel 4 News explaining the union of 1707: “Scotland was skint and England was flush.” </p>
<p>So we’ve been subsidy junkies since the start of the 18th century, and if the comment threads on the Mail and the Telegraph are correct, we’ll soon “come crawling back” after we vote Yes. The Guardian’s Michael White (only slightly) more subtly <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/08/salmond-scotland-independence-first-minister">praises</a> the first minister for success with his “grand illusion”.</p>
<p>Underlying Scotland’s brief moment in the sun is the harsher reality that these brief peaks of attention will disappear the moment a No vote has registered and Westminster and the London media can get back to business. The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/08/prince-william-duchess-cambridge-expecting-second-child">instant displacement</a> of Salmond by Will and Kate showed the true yearnings of London news editors. Even thoughtful commentators like Will Hutton <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/06/will-hutton-10-days-to-save-the-union-scottish-independence">propose a federal Britain</a> as the solution to Scottish needs. If ever there was a way of kicking the Scottish constitution into the long grass, that must be it. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, are the deathbed conversions of the three Westminster party leaders to devo-medium-strength is froth that the next UK election will have quickly blown off? No future Westminster government will be bound by fevered promises made in a panic in September 2014. </p>
<p>So if we vote No next week, it will likely be back to business – by about October, probably. The news cohorts will withdraw; the London media will note how our subsidy addiction overcame our nerve; Scotland as a news item will largely disappear. Current claims that “things will never be the same again” may be borne out too, though not in dreams of a federal Britain, but at best a take-it-or-leave-it Holyrood fix (devo-whatever, as long as it leaves real power at Westminster). This will come with financial penalties, probably also for Scotland’s role at Westminster, thus keeping the English regions quiet, enabling the nation to get on with important matters like finishing Crossrail, developing Thameslink, and pushing through that pesky third runway at Heathrow. </p>
<p><strong>Trevor Salmon, Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen</strong></p>
<p>I think Salmond is the kind that bears grudges. My fear is that the losing speeches are gracious but nothing else will be. Are there going to be recriminations? You hear about businessmen getting phone calls warning they’ll get no more business from the Scottish government if they support Yes. If there’s any of that, you despair. </p>
<p>At what point in his own mind does Salmond say, “I have been leader of the SNP for so long, I have failed. It’s time to go.” Maybe he’s not the sort of person to do that. Or he may decide to wait to see what happens at the 2016 election. But he would have to face the fact that some people voted No because of him. </p>
<p>Darling should get the credit if he wins. But he would have a moral obligation to run for the Scottish parliament. That would be the best way to ensure that everything he promised the Scots comes true. Part of the No side’s problem is that the SNP have the best performers in Holyrood by far. If senior Labour people resigned from Westminster and stood for the Scottish parliament, they would be saying it is significant to them. Labour also has to reconnect with its grass roots by recognising that people are worried about things like welfare reform and the future of the NHS. Salmond has spoken to traditional Labour values. Labour must understand these count for people. </p>
<p>The UK would change. People in Yorkshire, Tyneside and Cornwall are likely to ask for some kind of devolution. They are going to want something similar to the Barnett formula the system for transferring funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). And the country is going to have to answer the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/17/what-is-west-lothian-question">West Lothian question</a> about Scottish MPs voting on English business. It’s not going to be a sudden revolution. But these thing are now on the agenda. </p>
<p>Salmond <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-vows-keep-fighting-3187352">has said</a> a referendum is once in a generation. That should mean you can’t go back in a year or two. But if No wins, there will be another referendum. I have been predicting ten years, but if the vote is very close, it could even be five years. A fuse has been lit. </p>
<p><em>To read other editions of Scotland Decides ‘14, click <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/scotland-decides-14">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31542/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Will the heady blend of Westminster love-bombing, ominous corporate warnings and a saltire flag over Downing Street be enough to persuade the Scots to come back into the fold? We have already looked at…Karly Kehoe, Senior Lecturer in History, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityNeil Blain, Professor of Communications, University of StirlingTrevor Salmon, Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/314962014-09-11T05:12:40Z2014-09-11T05:12:40ZThe independence referendum in Scotland: a beginner’s guide<h2>What is Scotland voting for?</h2>
<p>Voters in Scotland will go to the polls on September 18 and answer the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” The result will be determined by a simple majority vote, and is expected to be announced on the morning of September 19.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Who can vote?</h2>
<p>The 4.1m <a href="http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/the_independence_referendum/guide_to_voting.aspx">people eligible to vote</a> include UK citizens, EU citizens and qualifying Commonwealth citizens currently resident in Scotland. Scots living outside of Scotland (with the exception of those in the military or diplomatic service) are not eligible to cast their vote. </p>
<p>The voting franchise has been <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25626419">extended to 16 and 17-year-olds</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What do the polls say?</h2>
<p>In a “poll of polls” conducted in <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/11/the-poll-position-a-quick-guide/">autumn 2013</a>, the average support for Yes was at 32%, with no at 49%. When accounting for undecided voters, this translated into to 39% for Yes, and 61% for No. </p>
<p>But in the most <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/poll-of-polls-5-september-updated/">recent poll of polls</a>, the difference has narrowed to four percentage points, with 48% polling Yes and 52% polling No. Early polls indicated a <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/papers/minding-gap-women%E2%80%99s-views-independence-2014">gender gap</a>, with women more likely to be in favour of the union, but this gap appears to have <a href="http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/09/06/the-scottish-independence-gender-gap-in-full/">closed in recent weeks</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why the sudden excitement?</h2>
<p>For most of the campaign, polls suggested a strong lead for the No campaign – but that now appears to have narrowed significantly. </p>
<p>A poll published on September 7 by <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/07/scotland-yes-blitzkrieg-wipes-out-no-lead/">YouGov</a> indicated that the Yes campaign had in fact pulled slightly ahead in the polls. A survey by pollster <a href="http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/scottish-opinion-monitor-swing-to-yes-makes-referendum-vote-too-close-to-ca-1">TNS BMRB</a>, published late the next day, showed that both sides were polling at 41% for those definitely going to vote, with the rest of the electorate undecided.</p>
<p>As far as the polls go, the referendum is now considered <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/09/scottish-yes-vote-momentum-independence-polls">too close to call</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Who is who?</h2>
<p>The official campaigns are <a href="http://www.yesscotland.net/">Yes Scotland</a> (with party support from the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Greens) and the unionist <a href="http://bettertogether.net/">Better Together</a> (supported by Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives). </p>
<p>First minister of Scotland <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28835771">Alex Salmond</a> has been the primary face of the Yes campaign on the trail and <a href="https://theconversation.com/salmond-vs-darling-debate-the-perceived-winner-is-not-what-matters-30940">in debates</a>, while <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-bruised-better-together-leader-alistair-darling-stays-on-the-stump-9719284.html">Alistair Darling</a>, Labour MP and former chancellor of the exchequer, has headed up Better Together (No to independence).</p>
<hr>
<h2>What are the key issues?</h2>
<p>The campaign has largely revolved around the economic implications of independence, with much being made of <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/financial-reflections-union-dividends-and-independence-bonuses">independence bonuses and union dividends</a> – the questions of whether Scots would be financially better of within or outside the union. </p>
<p>Other major issues are provisions for <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-scottish-independence-bad-for-your-health-30009">health</a>, social services and <a href="http://www.napf.co.uk/PolicyandResearch/DocumentLibrary/0353-Scottish-independence-the-implications-for-pensions.aspx">pensions</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-all-about-the-money-as-currency-debate-rages-on-24937">currency</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-strengthen-scottish-defence-after-independence-cooperate-with-london-23106">defence</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-who-is-right-on-eu-membership-26144">EU membership</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Would independent Scotland be in the EU?</h2>
<p>There isn’t a precedent for the division of an EU member state, and it’s unclear whether an independent Scotland would need to reapply or would automatically be granted entry. </p>
<p>The pro-independence campaign has maintained that Scotland would automatically be an EU member; <a href="http://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-who-is-right-on-eu-membership-26144">experts differ on how this accession process might occur</a>. Questions remain over whether Scotland would receive the same terms as the United Kingdom, which include a budgetary rebate and opt-outs from the eurozone and <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/index_en.htm">Schengen</a> – which gives freedom to cross internal borders in Europe.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What currency would it use?</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/7">Scottish government</a> has pledged to negotiate a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of a Yes vote, allowing Scotland to continue to use the pound sterling – even though, in a statement last year, <a href="http://theconversation.com/no-to-currency-union-but-that-might-not-change-many-scottish-minds-about-independence-23209">chancellor George Osborne</a> ruled this out. </p>
<p>However, there are questions over whether this is a negotiating tactic. <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/papers/scotland%E2%80%99s-currency-options">Currency options for Scotland</a> should a currency union prove unworkable include adopting sterling without a currency union (a “<a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/currency-union-would-have-dollarisation-effect-1-3402979">dollarisation</a>” model), using an independent Scottish currency, or adopting the euro. Essentially, <a href="https://theconversation.com/salmonds-plan-b-currency-alternatives-clarify-nothing-30984">it is not yet clear exactly what would happen</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>How would it defend itself?</h2>
<p>The proposals for a Scottish defence force put forth in the <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/10">Scottish government’s white paper</a> suggest a smaller, more modest force focused on maritime defence and peace-keeping, with a particular focus on the High North. The white paper proposes a defence budget of £2.5 billion (a reduction from the £3.3 billion Scotland contributes to the UK defence budget) and 15,000 regular and 5,000 reserve personnel. </p>
<p>Following independence, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-could-salmond-shift-on-retaining-nuclear-weapons-28752">withdrawal of the UK’s nuclear submarine programme</a> from Scotland would be negotiated. The Scottish government also foresees membership of NATO, though an independent Scotland would apparently <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28853275">have to apply</a>. </p>
<p>The UK government has critiqued these proposals in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scotland-analysis-defence">its own analysis</a>, arguing that Scotland is more secure within the United Kingdom and questioning whether an independent Scotland would be welcomed by NATO.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What would Yes vote mean internationally?</h2>
<p>The rest of the world has been relatively quiet on the topic of independence, watching instead of intervening. For his part, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27713327">US president Barack Obama</a> has said that he hopes that the United Kingdom will remain a “strong, robust, united and effective partner”, although noted that it would be up to the Scottish people. </p>
<p>As the vote nears, there are more signs of <a href="http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/110256/World/International/NATO-partners-raised-concerns-about-Scottish-indep.aspx">international concern</a> about the outcome, not least in financial markets, with the pound <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-07/pound-in-peril-as-opinion-poll-puts-scottish-separatists-ahead.html">falling after publication of the YouGov poll which indicated a close race</a>. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, substate nationalist parties such as those in <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/state-debate-lessons-quebec">Quebec</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/belgium-wont-split-after-sundays-elections-but-it-could-take-a-step-in-that-direction-26938">Flanders</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/catalonia-deadlocked-as-nationalists-plan-new-offensive-25101">Catalonia</a>, and the <a href="http://theconversation.com/basque-separatists-inch-along-watching-catalonia-closely-26115">Basque Country</a> are all expected to be watching especially closely.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What happens next if Scots vote No?</h2>
<p>All three unionist parties have promised more powers for the Scottish parliament should voters reject independence at the polls. However, each party has proposed <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/devolution-commission-reflections-comparisons-and-contrasts">different models</a>. There has been a recent flurry of activity on this front, with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/08/fgordon-brown-leads-scottish-labour-drive-rescue-no-campaign">Gordon Brown</a> introducing a timetable for a bill which would transfer significant powers to Scotland following a no vote. His proposals were backed by prime minister David Cameron, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, and Labour leader Ed Miliband. </p>
<p>In the event of a no vote, the Scottish National Party would remain in office in Edinburgh until the next Scottish parliamentary elections in May 2016.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What happens next if Scots votes Yes?</h2>
<p>Negotiations over the creation of an independent Scotland would likely begin immediately after a Yes vote, with a <a href="http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/negotiations-after-a-scottish-referendum-yes-vote/">wide range of issues</a> to be covered: currency, the division of assets and liabilities, borders, the movement of people, EU membership, the removal of Trident, and the distribution of pensions and welfare agreements. </p>
<p>To manage such a process, Salmond has called for a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28965416">Team Scotland negotiating team</a>, which would include leaders who campaigned against independence. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/02/transition-paper05022013">timetable for transition</a> envisioned by the Scottish government includes 18 months of negotiation, with a declaration of independence taking place on March 24, 2016. The election of the new Scottish parliament would then take place that May. Until formal independence, the laws currently in place will remain so. </p>
<p>The actual progress of the negotiations and the outcome of the 2015 UK general election, of course, might have a major impact on this timeline. Some issues may be negotiated immediately with interim agreements put into place for the rest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31496/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Coree Brown is a programme researcher for The Future of the UK and Scotland.</span></em></p>What is Scotland voting for? Voters in Scotland will go to the polls on September 18 and answer the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” The result will be determined by a simple majority…Coree Brown Swan, PhD Candidate in Politics, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/309402014-08-26T12:41:29Z2014-08-26T12:41:29ZSalmond vs Darling debate: the perceived winner is not what matters<p>To work out who won the debates between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling, you have to ask the audience. The trouble is that different audiences will tell you different things.</p>
<p>If you asked the studio audience, judging by the boos and cheers, they’d say that Darling won the first round and Salmond the second – a point reinforced by most of the media coverage. I think this says much more about the bias of the audiences, and their participation in the debate, than Salmond and Darling. (At key points, incidentally, the audience seemed more important than the politicians on stage - thus bringing to life <a href="http://paulcairney.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/536/">Schattschneider’s famous thought experiment</a>). </p>
<p>Salmond and Darling were making very similar points in both debates. In the first, Salmond was uncomfortable and seemed defensive when pressed to reveal his currency “Plan B”. This time, he was self-assured when presenting “three Plan Bs”. In the first debate, the currency argument was working great for Darling. This time, you could hear people ridiculing him when he tried to press the point home. This seemed to make a difference, giving Salmond the confidence to make a further claim, which might have faced an audible backlash in the first debate: if we don’t get our share of the Bank of England’s assets, we can’t be expected to share the UK’s debts. </p>
<p>Darling often seemed defensive or repetitive, and lost his cool enough to break ranks from Better Together to stress his Labour credentials – which he is entitled to do, but it suggests an uneasy temporary alliance with his Conservative and Liberal Democrat colleagues. He also seemed unable to adapt quickly enough to Salmond’s surprisingly subtle and relatively soft concern about the future of the Scottish NHS – a topic which has proved important enough to knock the currency issue off the front pages. </p>
<p>In the lead-up to the debate, Better Together’s argument was about the Yes campaign’s “scaremongering” and “lies” around the claim that privatisation of the English NHS would reduce spending on the Scottish NHS; it might oblige Scotland to follow the same path; and, only a written Scottish constitution could guarantee a public health service. Yet Salmond merely said that, in the future, the UK government <em>might</em> start charging fees and spend less on the NHS, which could have a knock-on effect for the Scottish budget (even if the health secretary went a bit further in the Scottish parliament). I think this wrong-footed Darling, who seemed determined to identify the Yes campaign’s scaremongering regardless. </p>
<p>If you asked the “snap poll” audience, you would get the same answer as the studio audience: Darling <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/05/alex-salmond-alistair-darling-scotland-debate-independence">won the first round</a> (56% agree, if you remove don’t knows) and Salmond <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/scotland-alex-salmond-alistair-darling-televised-debate">the second</a> (71%). Note that, of course, your response very much depends on who you already support. Note also that it is difficult to avoid the manly punch-up metaphor, which seems appropriate, given how long Salmond and Darling engaged in some entertaining/off-putting verbal sparring.</p>
<p>But right now, the only audience that matters is the voting public. Remember that, in the first debate, a Darling “win” produced either the same opinion poll results or a <a href="https://theconversation.com/scottish-referendum-tv-debate-played-to-the-partisans-not-the-key-undecided-voters-30192">slight bump for Yes</a> in a small number of polls – not the result you might have predicted. This time, Salmond’s win <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/08/salmond-wins-round-two/">had no immediate impact</a> on the vote. My instinct is that it will stay that way. But we won’t know if there has been an effect, if any, until we wait for people to read and think about the debate and its coverage over the next few days and weeks.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30940/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Cairney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>To work out who won the debates between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling, you have to ask the audience. The trouble is that different audiences will tell you different things. If you asked the studio…Paul Cairney, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/308922014-08-25T23:20:17Z2014-08-25T23:20:17ZScotland Decides ’14: Salmond strikes back in TV debate, but will it be a game changer?<p>When Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling lined up for the first TV debate on August 5, <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-darling-draws-first-blood-by-homing-in-on-salmond-weak-spot-30191">Darling came out the surprise winner</a> for the Better Together campaign. Few would disagree that the positions were reversed in the second debate between the two men. According to a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/25/guardian-icm-poll-alex-salmond-winner-scotland-debate">Guardian/ICM exit poll</a>, 71% thought Salmond came out on top. </p>
<p>Darling made many of the same arguments, and some new good points along the way, but most of the punches seemed not to connect. We asked our panel what went wrong for him, and how might that impact upon the campaign. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>John McKendrick, Senior Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>There were fairly robust arguments on both sides, but in terms of delivery, Salmond had the better of it. He seemed to ruffle some of Darling’s feathers. Especially on currency.</p>
<p>By the time they got to the interview segment, which was so important for Darling in the first debate, Salmond had made a good stab at the currency issue. He addressed the issue of “plan B” from the outset, making the point that he had three of them, but that his priority was to get a mandate from the Scottish people and that his job is to argue for what is best for them.</p>
<p>Darling didn’t manage to come at it from a different angle. He just stuck doggedly to asking the “plan B question”. Ironically, he then chose not to answer a very similar question when it was posed to him. Unable to change tack, he started to sound a bit too scripted. He needed to think quicker on his feet. In his closing speech, he was too obviously reading from a script. On the other hand, Salmond is a performer, stepping out from behind the lectern to address the audience – it was more engaging. At times Darling seemed exasperated, got himself a bit anxious that things weren’t going his way. He came across as very stilted, as if he knew he had had a bad night and just wanted out of there.</p>
<p>In fairness, he did still get across some good arguments. It wasn’t a knock out. He was punching away for the 15 rounds. He sounded stronger when he talked about the numbers adding up, the argument about how you can’t spend and save at the same time. He made some reasonable arguments on poverty, but the audience weren’t receptive. In truth, it’s not fair to trash Labour’s record on tackling poverty. Salmond got away with saying Labour were in bed with the Tories on welfare. And it was misleading of him to suggest that everybody in Scotland is against welfare reform.</p>
<p>But Salmond sounded very strong saying 100,000 more kids would be in child poverty by 2020, and that reconfiguring welfare payments to the disabled have caused a similar number of people to lose money they can ill-afford. It made it very difficult for Darling to make a good case for the union in terms of what lies ahead when Salmond could give concrete examples of things that are getting worse now. And Darling could offer nothing fresh when he was asked for three ways in which Better Together would introduce new job-creating opportunities in Scotland. I had my head in my hands at that point.</p>
<p>On the BBC commentary afterwards, [Scottish political editor] Brian Taylor was quite careful, saying Salmond supporters would be walking away slightly happier. That’s a very generous interpretation. If it was a cup final, Salmond walked away with the trophy.</p>
<p>So was it a game changer? It might be for some people. It will certainly check the negativity for the Yes campaign that surrounded the first debate. Anybody who thought the first debate changed the game in favour of No will have to think again. Saying that, I don’t think anything on its own will be enough to get people to vote for, or against, independence. But you would have more confidence in the Yes campaign after this debate, certainly.</p>
<p><strong>Trevor Salmon, Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen</strong></p>
<p>Much of Salmond’s theme was the current situation, the cuts, the National Health Service, the bedroom tax, the number of people in poverty and so on. I thought Salmond spoke well on these issues. It was basically anti-Conservative, arguing that Labour were in bed with the Tories on the cuts.</p>
<p>Darling said an awful lot about risk, about the gamble of independence, the uncertainty of the oil price. He sounded better on those subjects. When he was asked by the audience whether he could give examples in the last five years where being part of the UK has been beneficial for Scotland, apart from the currency he had no good answer. </p>
<p>Darling did well to make the point that the Scottish government is against Trident but joining NATO. But he should have said more about it. He should have said that if you are against nuclear weapons, why are you joining an alliance that’s pledged to use them if necessary. </p>
<p>On the question of who won, when Salmond started talking about the NHS and welfare and so forth, I thought: people will remember that. He won the heart argument. Darling won the head argument, especially about the currency. But the audience were behind Salmond more, particularly as the evening went on. I’d say it was a narrow victory for Salmond overall.</p>
<p>Darling and his advisers obviously believe it’s about the economy and finance. You could argue that one of the whole problems with Better Together is the vision thing, which caused them problems tonight. Salmond has this thing about the Scottish people making decisions for Scotland. Better Together don’t seem to have come up with the heart thing. </p>
<p>But I am sure many people will have switched off because they were talking over each other. I couldn’t believe the chairman let them do that. It was like a schoolboy fight in some ways. When you watch the American presidential election debates, they are structured. They don’t allow anybody to interrupt. They all have to stick to their time. It will be very interesting to see what the viewing figures at 9.30pm were like compared to 8.30pm. In that sense both sides lost. That may have undermined the result for the Yes campaign. </p>
<p><em>To read other editions of Scotland Decides ‘14, click <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/scotland-decides-14">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30892/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling lined up for the first TV debate on August 5, Darling came out the surprise winner for the Better Together campaign. Few would disagree that the positions were reversed…John H McKendrick, Senior Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityTrevor Salmon, Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/301922014-08-05T23:28:00Z2014-08-05T23:28:00ZScottish referendum TV debate played to the partisans, not the key undecided voters<p>The first leaders’ debate was meant to be an opportunity for Scotland’s uncommitted – though not necessarily wholly undecided – voters to make up their minds about which way to vote. Yet whether it succeeded in helping many of them to do so is doubtful.</p>
<p>The format of the occasion did not help. The two leaders were encouraged either to cross swords with each other or else to address the audience in the intimate atmosphere of the <a href="http://www.rcs.ac.uk/">Conservatoire’s opera house</a>. They spent all too little time addressing the camera, hence missing an opportunity to connect with the voters watching from the comfort of their own sofas.</p>
<p>But the focus adopted by the two combatants compounded the problem. For the most part, they preferred to talk about subjects that matter to partisans on both sides. Issues such as Scotland being governed by Tories that it did not elect, or what currency an independent Scotland would adopt, matter far less to those who had not already made up their minds a long time ago. </p>
<p>Particularly notable was the absence of any extended discussion on how Scotland’s economy could best be made more prosperous. That after all, according to all the polling evidence, is the issue that most concerns uncommitted voters and certainly seems most likely to change minds.</p>
<p>Still, voters might at least have secured insight into some of the weaknesses in the arguments of both sides. Darling struggled most when asked exactly what powers would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the event of a No vote. Salmond was under most pressure when he was persistently asked what his plan B on currency would be. On these occasions, at least, the light of critical scrutiny was cast upon the referendum debate.</p>
<p>One surprise about the debate was that, far from being boring, Darling proved to be if anything the more animated of the two. He was most at home when trying to identify what he reckoned were the weaknesses in his opponent’s armour. Salmond’s performance, in contrast, was more true to form. He was happiest when towards the end of the debate he gained some opportunity to lay out his vision for an independent Scotland. And he was always ready – perhaps indeed too ready – to attack Darling’s past record and statements rather than responding to some of the criticisms of his own stance. </p>
<p>In being more animated than expected, Darling seems to have done enough to ensure the event will not be the game changer that the Yes side had hoped for. According to an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/05/alex-salmond-alistair-darling-scotland-debate-independence">instant poll</a> of just over 500 viewers conducted by ICM for The Guardian, 47% thought Darling won the debate, compared with 37% for Salmond, while 15% were unable to identify a winner.</p>
<p>In truth most Yes and No voters simply thought their own man had won. More interestingly among the small group of previously undecided voters in ICM’s sample, Salmond emerged narrowly ahead by 44%, to Darling’s 36%. That seems to have helped produce a two-point increase in Yes support among ICM’s sample as compared with what respondents said before the debate, while No support was up by one point. </p>
<p>But given that an Ipsos MORI poll at the beginning of the night suggested that the Yes campaign is still 14 points behind, the pro-independence side needed to make much more progress than that. There must be some concern in the nationalist camp that they may have let slip a key opportunity to advance their cause.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30192/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Curtice does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The first leaders’ debate was meant to be an opportunity for Scotland’s uncommitted – though not necessarily wholly undecided – voters to make up their minds about which way to vote. Yet whether it succeeded…John Curtice, Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/301912014-08-05T22:08:58Z2014-08-05T22:08:58ZScotland Decides ’14: Darling draws first blood by homing in on Salmond weak spot<p>The leaders of the rival campaigns in Scotland’s independence referendum battle have clashed in the first televised debate ahead of the September 18 poll. So, who came out on top?</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>David McCausland, Head of Economics, University of Aberdeen</strong></p>
<p>The live debate on Scottish independence between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling will undoubtedly kick start discussion around the country. But it was ultimately unsatisfying. Nothing in the way of new detail was revealed, and key questions remained unanswered.</p>
<p>On balance, Alastair Darling won on the night. He correctly identified the currency question as Salmond’s weak point, and repeatedly hammered him on that issue. Salmond provided no answers. There was no plan B. Even if the UK agreed to Scotland joining the pound, what this means is that Scotland would be handing over control of monetary policy to Westmister. George Osborne would be setting the interest rate that affects the mortgages and loan repayments of the Scottish people. </p>
<p>This would be an odd concept of independence, and constitutes one of the strangest contradictions of Salmond’s stance. Worse still, monetary union implies some degree of fiscal union. This makes the claims of being able to have an independent fiscal policy somewhat suspect. Seemingly everything rested on scrapping Trident, which though many may support, would be unable alone to deliver the kind of fiscal expenditure envisaged.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, Salmond made a strong case resting on Scottish people having control of their own destiny. This was a strategy to tug at the heart strings, but also looked very vulnerable to questions of detail. Salmond really needs to address these issues - particularly on currency - if he is not to be charged with sidestepping. What Darling needs to work on is a more positive vision, and a better explanation of how devo-max can deliver. Perhaps then future debates can hone in on important questions and elicit new answers, unfettered by a distracting studio audience. </p>
<p><strong>Neil Blain, Professor of Communications, University of Stirling</strong></p>
<p>So it’s not only Andy Murray having a wobble in the rankings. It was strange to see the First Minister’s serve so far off form. Bernard Ponsonby, the mediator, had to get off the umpire’s chair now and then to produce a decent match, by serving to Darling himself at some points in this debate. The umpire won in straight sets. </p>
<p>Whichever Yes for Scotland team member thought up jokes about driving on the right and space invasion should learn to let a script sit overnight and edit it in the morning over strong coffee. Salmond barely touched on what the Scottish electorate might want to say “No Thanks” to, if Scotland remains in the UK. The Yes campaign hasn’t learned the lesson of how negative campaigning works; a more urgent criticism than the No campaign’s negativity, which Alistair Darling embodied throughout. Although, on balance Darling performed more naturally than his opponent and was better on much of the detail.</p>
<p>But the dark, unexplored hinterland of what we might be “Better Together” with remains unlit. The Conservative Party’s drift even further to the right, with a third of English Tory voters favouring a governance pact with UKIP in 2015, never figured. The openly anti-European stance of powerful Tory figures like Philip Hammond got barely a mention. Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson belonged as subjects of this debate, since they may be the political future we’re “together” with, but they didn’t show up. </p>
<p>London’s domination of our economic world didn’t get a mention, nor the vast resources spent on its infrastructure. The aims of the northern English cities to join hands across the Pennines may shove Scotland further down the Westminster pecking order. As a strategic consideration of the future, the debate barely got beyond the clichés which Salmond and Darling were supposed to avoid. </p>
<p>There was no detailed vision of the long term at all, which must have pushed the undecided more toward No than Yes. Both men were unsettled by the occasion, but the audience did well. And so did STV mainly, except for their failing livestream. Though the set looked a bit hand-knitted, and their first visit to the Spin Room so early on in the proceedings was daft. Not counting the moderator, I scored a win against expectations for Alistair Darling, on the question which won’t go away: it’s the currency. And we’re not stupid. </p>
<p><strong>Michael Keating, Professor of Politics, University of Aberdeen</strong></p>
<p>Alex Salmond needed a strong, uplifting message in order to win this debate and sway the undecided voters. He failed to provide it. The decision to come with a list of quotations from No supporters was a major mistake. Salmond wasted his opportunity to pin Darling down, taking up valuable time with trivial point-scoring, which Darling was able to wave aside. Salmond was then put on the defensive over the pound, a predicable line of attack from the No side. </p>
<p>Darling was given an easy ride over the effects of a No vote, only showing himself uncomfortable when pressed on exactly what new powers would be given to Scotland. Salmond failed to exploit Better Together’s weakest point, which is their contention that Scotland cannot pay its own way but that UK taxpayers will continue to pay their bills. </p>
<p>Neither side was able to show a positive vision for Scotland, to show that – whether in or out of the union – it can and will pay its own way. The Yes side’s vision of Scotland as a small independent and prosperous nation remains underdeveloped. The No campaign cannot tell us how they would use new powers to achieve the same ends without independence.</p>
<p>Both sides must be aware that there appears to be little movement of voters between the Yes and No camps, but that the Don’t Knows are beginning to make their minds up. Their greatest concern is uncertainty, but neither side has managed to reassure them.
This was a victory on points to Darling, but it is unlikely that it will sway many votes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30191/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Keating receives funding from The Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil Blain and W David McCausland do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The leaders of the rival campaigns in Scotland’s independence referendum battle have clashed in the first televised debate ahead of the September 18 poll. So, who came out on top? David McCausland, Head…W David McCausland, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of AberdeenMichael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics, University of AberdeenNeil Blain, Professor of Communications, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/301342014-08-05T05:10:23Z2014-08-05T05:10:23ZTV debate marks start of the home straight in Scotland’s independence referendum race<p>General elections can be divided into a long campaign that can run from as early as the previous poll and the more intense short campaign that kicks off towards the end. The Scottish independence referendum has differed from a general election in many respects, not least in that the long campaign has been very intense. </p>
<p>But the evening of August 5 will see the short campaign getting properly underway with the debate on Scottish Television between the country’s first minister, Alex Salmond, who is seeking a yes to Scottish independence, and Alistair Darling, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who is leading the campaign for a no vote that would keep Scotland in the United Kingdom. </p>
<p>Following the interlude of the Commonwealth Games, it will undoubtedly still mark an intensification compared to what has gone before. The debate itself is unlikely to change many minds but each side will expend much energy trying to convince us it won. It seems unlikely that a clear winner will emerge in a debate between two such experienced politicians. And even if one is deemed to have outperformed the other, it may mean little.</p>
<p>Nick Clegg showed this in 2010 when <a href="http://electiondebates.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/did-it-matter-in-the-end-the-uk-election-debate-wrap/">he was regarded as the winner</a> in the TV debates but his party’s performance at the election <a href="http://www.academia.edu/1528016/How_did_televised_leaders_debates_influence_vote_choice_in_the_2010_UK_General_Election">hardly suggested so</a> (contrary to an <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7601435/General-Election-2010-Lib-Dems-surge-to-two-points-behind-Labour-in-Sunday-Telegraph-poll.html">impressive surge</a> in the opinion polls the month before).</p>
<h2>Town criers</h2>
<p>This professional debate won’t necessarily compare favourably with the dynamism and unpredictability of the ones that have been taking place across Scotland in recent months. What we have witnessed in villages, towns and cities across Scotland has been a remarkable renewal of Scottish democracy as campaigners, especially on the yes side, have engaged with the public in well attended meetings and events. </p>
<p>The town-hall meeting, once thought to be dead, has been revived in this referendum. The issues raised in these meetings have often been unpredictable, unscripted and ranged far and wide, often departing from the formal referendum question of whether Scotland should be an independent country. Instead it has presented the best opportunity in many years for Scots to discuss what kind of society they want, though any reader of the press might be forgiven for being unaware of these wider debates.</p>
<h2>City strictures</h2>
<p>In contrast, the period from August 5 onwards is likely to be dominated by the leaders of the campaigns and the political parties. The broadcast media will become the dominant domain during the short campaign. Bound by regulations ensuring neutrality, this is likely to be a fairly sanitised and professional campaign, albeit heated and highly adversarial. As well as this debate, the two sides are <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/tv-debate-salmond-and-darling-ready-to-grapple-1-3497524">in negotiations</a> over holding others on the BBC and Channel 4. </p>
<p>The likelihood of new issues emerging on the referendum agenda seems slim, even though new angles on existing issues might well crop up. Each side has its preferred focus. Setting the news agenda will be at least as important as ensuring equality in the number of broadcast minutes allocated, since it will matter more to either side than having time to refute a criticism. </p>
<p>We can expect the familiar competition of lists of supporters. Celebrity endorsements can help a campaign in a “Heineken way” – a famous actor, singer or sportsperson can refresh parts of the electorate that politicians cannot reach. </p>
<p>But competing to see who has the longest list of celebrities is unlikely to change voters’ minds. More generally, the campaign groups have also had ample time to identify support. The challenge in the short campaign will be to mobilise that support and get it to the polls. That is what the weeks leading up to September 18 will be all about.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30134/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council</span></em></p>General elections can be divided into a long campaign that can run from as early as the previous poll and the more intense short campaign that kicks off towards the end. The Scottish independence referendum…James Mitchell, Professor of Public Policy, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.