Scottish Referendum debate: Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond, Wednesday September 10th, 1.45-2.45pm

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,

We're delighted to announce that Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling will both be joining us on Mumsnet this Wednesday at 1.45pm, to take part in a live debate in the lead-up to the Scottish Referendum on September 18th.

The decision with which Scottish voters are faced this month constitutes a significant moment in the history - and future - of Scotland and the UK. And with polls currently predicting a result that's too close to call, this final showdown between the two leaders could potentially prove decisive.

The debate will be conducted along typical Mumsnet webchat lines, but with each guest free to question and respond to the answers of the other. We know the referendum has been a topic of serious discussion on the site (we're currently on IndyRef thread number seven - and counting ...) so in order to ensure that the leaders answer your questions, we're restricting the ability to post to Mumsnetters who'd been members of the site for more than 24 hours before the launch of this thread. Otherwise, the usual guidelines apply.

Please join us on Wednesday at 1.45pm - and if you can't make it then, as ever, do post up any comments or questions in advance.

If this really is Alex's Plan B, it is mad.

Applauds and whoops! And then apologies to Mumnset for interrupting.

How many people, in total, are employed by those 300 businesses?

What will be the position for rUK students applying through UCAS to study at a Scottish university for a 4 year degree commencing September 2015? How will that work when Scotland is independent and no longer in the EU?

It's putting people off applying.

Can I ask both Alex and Alistair why it's more important to rescue a family in Glasgow from needing a foodbank than doing the same for a family in Manchester?

I don't want to stop poverty in my back yard, I want to stop it altogether, and that is why I think that nationalism is fundamentally a selfish and divisive movement.

Buffydoo

Hear hear

Alistair

Thank you for your response but surely you must be be able to make an educated guess as to a minimum number of years?

I'll start you off:

1.5 years until actual independence
+
say 5 years first parliamentary term where everyone is running round like headless chickens getting things in order and finding out what is still to sort; whilst external investors play a waiting game to see what this new Scotland will offer by way of incentives to investment
+
say another 5 years with a change of government because everyone got fed up watching the headless chickens; by which time, constitutional things might be starting to get sorted out and external investors become a little keener to invest in Scotland
+
say another 5 to 7 years of increasing amounts of inward investment and a government that is starting to know what it is doing to run the country (it's taken that long post-bank crash to now after all)

so, just under 20 years is my best guess for things feeling like they do today..... by which time (I work in property and construction), my work flow will just start to become more robust but I would have been hoping to retire... My kid is age 6 just now and in 20 years, if our income dimishes like it has done for the last 7 years, she'll be lucky if we can afford to support her through college or university. Indeed, she may not manage to get a job in Scotland at all - great!?!?

It's a 'no thanks' to independence from me on these grounds alone.......

So, Mr Salmond, no currency union. Then what happens to my mortgage? You are a well educated economist, well used to speculating on the future. What will my mortgage be?

@AlexSalmond

[quote bananaboat] Mr Salmond in the second debate you talked about a Tory-led plan to privatise the NHS in Scotland which has apparently chimed with voters and boost the Yes campaign's popularity.

But the NHS is wholly devolved in Scotland and the Tories have no influence in the Scottish Government. Can you explain?

The difficulty is, while the administration of the NHS is fully devolved, the finance is dependent on decisions made at Westminster. For example, the UK government recently decided to ignore the independent pay review and give nurses and other workers and increase in pay. In Scotland, we made the decision to honour that obligation. That cost around £30 million. Because there was no finance from Westminster to pay for the increase, we had to find it out of other budgets, which was very difficult. That provides an example of why anything under the current system, which impacts on NHS public finance in England has an immediate knock-on effect in Scotland. Thus, privatisation and charging in the NHS south of the border will put great pressure on our public health service in Scotland unless we control both sides of the balance sheet and the finance as well as the administration of our public National Health Service.

There's an excellent article from Professor Alison Pollock, which was in the Sunday Herald a week past Sunday, which is well worth a look.[/quote]

The NHS is completely devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Prime Minister can't privatise it. The First Minister could. Actually, he's spent more than a hundred million pounds on private provision in the last few years. He might not mention that too often. What matters is that health care is free at the point of need. Not only does the Scottish Parliament have complete control over health policy, but from 2016 it will have power to raise money to spend more on the health service, if it wants to do that. In other words, you can have the changes we need to guarantee health spending under devolution, within the UK. You don't need to break up the country to do that.

I have asked the same question wwbuffydo of Mr Salmond. I didn't expect him to answer it - but there's still a few minutes....

Finally, in an independent Scotland mortgage rates will continue to be based on the interest rate set by the Bank of England, which in a Sterling Area will be exactly the same for Scotland as for the rest of the UK, just as it is now.

Mr Salmond. Does that not strike you as a bit strange? An independent Scotland has their interest rate set in England. The very country you've just become independent from?

Yes campaign are very critical of UK regulation of banks. So they surely couldn't countenance a CU.

I'd like to ask Mr Darling, if the oil is running out as quickly as BT claims, where is the UK plan B? The Lords removed the Scottish Government's renewables obligation and Westminster has abandoned its post-2020 renewables targets. Is the Westminster approach to dwindling fossil fuel reserves the same as to this referendum - pretend it isn't happening and then panic at the last minute?

Rowan- I posted 1 question. Lots of other posters made multiple posts and questions. I commented on posts made and made 2 'rhetorical question' type comments which were obviously not expecting a response.

Why do you choose to single out a Yes poster for webchat etiquette when others are not following the guidelines to the letter?

Serious question for both- will Scottish nuclear waste continue to be processed in England in the event of independence?

I agree buffy. I have asked a similar question myself. It seems we are not going to get an answer though.

@niceguy2

AS: Last month one of the most respected industrialists in Scotland, Sir Ian Wood accused you of exaggerating the amount of revenue from North Sea oil by up to 60%.

In light of this, do you still stand by your figures or is Sir Ian merely scaremongering like those who claimed Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU and NATO?

Hi, niceguy2. You'll also know that Ian Wood's estimate of 16.5 billion barrels is more than 60% higher than the OBR's suggestion of 10 billion barrels. The Scottish Government have always used the industry body Oil and Gas UK estimate of up to 24 billion barrels of oil and gas remaining and noticeably that was backed again this morning by Prof Alex Kemp, the foremost expert in this field and the only one with a comprehensive field model at the University of Aberdeen. Alex pointed out that he expected the development of up to a hundred as yet undeveloped fields.

It should be said that Ian Wood's estimate wood imply a wholesale value of one trillion pounds sterling over the next thirty-five years or so - that is one thousand, thousand million, which sounds to me like an asset of substantial proportions. If the government revenue from that is say 20% that suggests an average tax take of around £6 billion per year, more than £1,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Most countries would consider that an amazing advantage, not a dreadful curse as the no campaign consistently suggest. However, the real wealth of Scotland does not lie in the North Sea or in the waters around the country, where we'll be developing hydrocarbons for the next 50-100 years, it lies in the wit and ingenuity of the Scottish people, who are perfectly able to make this country both more prosperous and more fair.

On the EU, you'll have noted that it's all gone quiet from the no campaign over the past few weeks, probably for the very obvious reason that the incoming President of the Commission has said that he will respect the referendum process of Scotland and the former President of the Parliament said in Edinburgh yesterday that 18 months was perfectly viable to negotiate Scotland's continuing membership of the EU - an international body founded on democratic values. I suppose, the common sense of this would rest on four numbers: 1, 20, 25 and 60. 1 is our percentage of the EU's population, 20 is our percentage share of the European Union's fish stocks, 25 is the percentage estimated of offshore marine renewable energy and 60 is the percentage of the European Union's conventional oil reserves. It seems hardly likely that a country with these ratios will be anything other than welcome in the wider European family.

Finally, I thought the fact that the last UK Ambassador to NATO, Dame Mariot Leslie, who retired only this year has stated firmly that of course Scotland would be welcome in that organisation was a rather telling contribution - don't you?

WWbuffydo this was what my earlier questioned was aimed at. I don't believe we should ALL be getting free school meals, prescriptions and buss passes when there is still such a high rate of poverty. The money from those things should be used to fight it. Sadly the question was somewhat evaded.

AS: Do you regret suppoting Fred Goodwin? Do you think your foresight was flawed - have you changed?

Panama

In 2013, Panama saw its GDP rise 5.57 percent, a feat that will be repeated in 2014, according to Trading Economics. The predictions for 2015 and 2016, however, are much higher, at a little more than 9 percent. The International Monetary Fund is even more optimistic, calculating this year’s GDP growth at 6.9 percent, the highest in the whole of Latin America. (UK GDP about +0.5%?)
www.ibtimes.com/panamas-economy-will-grow-over-5-percent-2014-making-it-fastest-growing-economy-latin-america

Panama also has one of the most stable banking systems in the world
www.adamsmith.org/blog/tag/free-banking/

Aren't they going to say goodbye? Tsk.

Can I ask both leaders whether they think it is crude and insulting to equate the Scottish referendum to South Africa's post apartheid election? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2750002/Anger-Salmond-plays-apartheid-card-He-likens-Scots-clamour-vote-South-Africa-s-election.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

@AlistairDarling

[quote AlexSalmond] [quote bananaboat] Mr Salmond in the second debate you talked about a Tory-led plan to privatise the NHS in Scotland which has apparently chimed with voters and boost the Yes campaign's popularity.

But the NHS is wholly devolved in Scotland and the Tories have no influence in the Scottish Government. Can you explain?

The difficulty is, while the administration of the NHS is fully devolved, the finance is dependent on decisions made at Westminster. For example, the UK government recently decided to ignore the independent pay review and give nurses and other workers and increase in pay. In Scotland, we made the decision to honour that obligation. That cost around £30 million. Because there was no finance from Westminster to pay for the increase, we had to find it out of other budgets, which was very difficult. That provides an example of why anything under the current system, which impacts on NHS public finance in England has an immediate knock-on effect in Scotland. Thus, privatisation and charging in the NHS south of the border will put great pressure on our public health service in Scotland unless we control both sides of the balance sheet and the finance as well as the administration of our public National Health Service.

There's an excellent article from Professor Alison Pollock, which was in the Sunday Herald a week past Sunday, which is well worth a look.[/quote]

The NHS is completely devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Prime Minister can't privatise it. The First Minister could. Actually, he's spent more than a hundred million pounds on private provision in the last few years. He might not mention that too often. What matters is that health care is free at the point of need. Not only does the Scottish Parliament have complete control over health policy, but from 2016 it will have power to raise money to spend more on the health service, if it wants to do that. In other words, you can have the changes we need to guarantee health spending under devolution, within the UK. You don't need to break up the country to do that.[/quote] Oops, sorry, got het up there and posted before I meant to. Frightening people on health, cancer patients, the elderly and vulnerable, is despicable.

Mr Salmond is being disingenuous at best by repeatedly saying that iScotland will use the pound without further elaboration and relying on the fact that lots if people won't understand the difference between a currency union and sterlingisation. Indefensible not to be clear on such an important issue.

Currency union would be political suicide for any party that allows it.

@Kasino72

I'd like to ask Mr Darling, if the oil is running out as quickly as BT claims, where is the UK plan B? The Lords removed the Scottish Government's renewables obligation and Westminster has abandoned its post-2020 renewables targets. Is the Westminster approach to dwindling fossil fuel reserves the same as to this referendum - pretend it isn't happening and then panic at the last minute?

Oil revenues are about 2% of the UK's tax base. Although oil revenues have been declining that can be dealt with within the UK budget. On renewables, the Scottish industry relies on a UK subsidy from the bills of all payers to make it work. Lose that and jobs are at risk and electricity prices would rise.

If I could retweet you on this I would DrTucker!