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.

Saw Alex Salmond's last answer, in which he goes on about nuclear weapons, again. But he wants an independent Scotland to join NATO, so will be under the NATO nuclear umbrella.

Either he's for nuclear deterrent or he's against it. Or he's just a hypocrite.

I'll be the first to admit that Wings can be pretty unpleasant and vitriolic. And he's not a charismatic character. Nonetheless, there are some important facts in the WBB which are indisputable and are ignored or covered up by mainstream sources. Mners can read for themselves and follow up references - everyone posting information and links here has an agenda.

I thought The Wee Blue Book was produced by the extreme independent wings over Scotland? Am I mixing it up with something else, apologies if so.
If not I wouldn't be imploring anyone to read something so biased

X post

Sorry Latte - wasn't getting narky at you. More a generalized narkiness at people complaining about a structure that was agreed 2 years ago. No one complained back then when they assumed No would win - it's only more recently, when it's looked like it is going to be close that people feel threatened.

Even though I was in effect would've been a No voter back in 1979 when I was on the register but not allowed to vote I can remember the resentment that the "win" generated.

So I can understand why no threshold was included this time - but I was wondering what threshold should Yes win would satisfy the No voters?

Erm, niceguy2, the Clydesdale is actually owned by an Austalian company, and has heen for many years. Anyone got a mortagage with the Spanish bank Santander?.

Fully support reading the wee blue book; you don't have to agree with it but you can check the references for yourself. Shouldn't we all?

Pretty - I will admit I haven't paid as much attention to this as I could or should have.

However, even if I had been up in arms about it 2 years ago - as a 'not-able-to-vote-er' I don't see what I could have done about it.

Also, if I had been asked two years ago I would have assumed the vote would be an overwhelming 'Yes' vote or why bother with it.

I have no problem, if the vast majority of Scottish people want this, finding a way to make it work for everyone.

I just don't think the way things are right now, that a yes vote can end up in anything other than a nightmare for all of us.

I don't know what percentage - in corporate things it's often 75%. I was heading for 80%. I think my minimum would be 70%

I just think that the way things are, no-one knows really what they would actually 'get', only what the politicians are promising and we all know what their promises are worth. How can anyone, yes or no, vote like this :(

OldLady At the moment mortgages from Santander in this country (whole of the UK) are regulated by the FCA. More importantly their mortgages are in Sterling - the same currency as nearly everyone is paid in.

What is going to happen to people in Scotland with a mortgage in Sterling when they suddenly start being paid in a new Scottish currency? The exposure to exchange rate fluctuations could make paying an ordinary mortgage impossible for many ordinary people in Scotland.

Latte countries have been seeking and achieving independence from the British Empire for hundreds of years. It's not something new and unusual. And because it's something that happens in the future, it is impossible to know exactly what we'll be getting. That's been the case for us because Westminster has refused to prenegotiate, knowing that the uncertainty would work to their advantage in keeping Scotland and its resources within the UK. You only need to look at the campaign material they've produced for confirmation that this was their agenda. And listening to people wringing their hands about the lack of facts, the uncertainty and the not knowing exactly what will happen, it's worked well for them. It's worked on you anyway.

Of all the countries who've gained independence you will struggle to find examples of failures amongst them. And Scotland had many advantages - a budding renewables sector with the potential to power much of western Europe, strong export markets, some of the world's oldest and most respected educational institutions with a massive life sciences industry, a skilled, English-speaking population and a cherry in the form of oil.

We don't have answers in the event of either outcome because we don't have a crystal ball and the people who could help us agree on things have refused to do so until we've voted for it. That's the nature of the future. But if you vote no you'll receive some unspecified powers, expected to be the means to raise tax (ie inevitable tax increases to make up for the funding shortfall when they take Barnett away, if you ask me). If you vote yes you have as much power as a population ever needs to dictate what we do with our resources, rather than having to accept pocket money from a domineering, corrupt and out of touch UK government. Both are unknowns, you just have to decide which unknown holds more possibility for you, and for the country as a whole.

I'm also intrigued that the arguments are always about the Scottish economy when we're denied a currency union. Nobody seems to consider the effect of denying a currency union on the rest of the UK.

Moody's have said that entering in to a currency union would be a "credit rating negative" event for the UK. They'd be on a one-way bet to guaranteeing us - they would be big enough to bail us out, we wouldn't be big enough to reciprocate.

Colonies achieving independence from an empire is entirely different from an integrated structure such as the UK. Colonies were distant, without Westminster representation, without an integrated economy, without a shared (fairly small) landmass.

Lots of economists have written about the impact of a currency union on the rest of the UK. Lots of them agree it is not in rUK's interest, or in fact Scotland's interest. Some do. Doutbless there is political motivation on both sides.

Personally I'd give my vote to any political party that won't enter into a currency union with iScotland - even UKIP if it came down to it.

I wish Scotland every success in Independance - but am not prepared to underwrite them soi they can do what they like and rUK will pick up the pieces.

Well done all posters quoted in the Times today!

I am not against an independence vote but it must be wholly so - they can form a new currency - the Scot or something like that. I do not want a mostly Conservative England having its currency affected by high tax left wing Scots. It is bad enough that student fees and prescription charges are different in the supposedly united Kingdom. Enough is enough. We can wish them well and let them get on with it.

That I suppose is a right wing/ libertarian view of it Greengrow.

Rupert Murdoch seems excited at the prospect of an independent Scotland as well.

The SNP were described by a Scottish political pundit on TV last night as potential natural partners for Conservatives in an Independent Scotland.

Indeed.

Also why are the no campaigners going on about money all the time? Money is not the only thing that drives people's decisions by any means and having more money is not something that makes people happy. Taking a long hike through the Highlands is much more likely to make someone happy in terms of beta endorphins and health than a slightly higher house price.

I think the no campaign in the last week or two have been doing very badly which does not bother me too much at all as Scotland will do fine on its own and we shall manage without her. It may mean we only ever have Tory Governments in the rump UK forever and that would be no bad thing too.

Murdoch just wants to 'giruy' to Cameron at the moment. That man has his own agenda and will only do what's best for Murdoch.

We talk about money because it is so important. We talk about jobs. If I can't afford to get to the Highlands how do I go for my endorphin boosting hike? This isn't about the value of my property, this is about whether I keep my job and where that job moves to. Sorry if you think at is shallow.

What does the Times say about us? I don't subscribe so won't be able to read it,

Times? No idea what you're talking about.

Someone said MN was referenced and quoted inThe Times.

sorry OOAOML

That was supposed to be to winifred, not you at all

@Romeyroo

Well, my quick tally suggests that Alex Salmond answered 17 questions, including one twice; and Alistair Darling answered 16 - so in terms of questions answered, it was about equal. Have not read all of the content yet, though.

Actual tally of questions answered, fwiw, (not including hellos and goodbyes etc) was Alex Salmond - 19 vs Alistair Darling - 17
You can see an archive here

Is that because AS hung around longer?