So, I saw this last night on BBC1 and I’m afraid to say that the quality of ‘debate’ was extremely low.
The pro-union camp should *never* put Jim Wallace onto a platform again – he was a disgrace. Not only was he full of bluster, but he started the whole debate with negativity, and used all the old scare tactics to keep the electorate in fear of what would happen with the fall of the union. Here’s a transcription of the fun part:
| JW: |
|
| NS: |
|
| JW (flustered): |
|
| NS: |
|
| JW: |
|
| NS: |
|
| JW: |
|
| NS: |
|
And what valid barriers did wee Jim cite as examples? None. He flustered, waved his hands around, and behaved like a wee schoolboy who was caught cheating by the teacher. He might as well have stuck his hands between his legs and pouted in a big huff.
Interestingly, towards the end of the debate, the following was observed by a member of the audience:
[points made on imperialism, illegal wars, weapons of mass destruction in Faslane - independence offers a new start free of these things which we have no say in] … just like the guy in the grey hair here: he looks like a relic and he talks like a relic, he doesn’t talk like young people of this country, and they want an end to all the things I mentioned.
It was quite interesting, and gave me a fair amount of heart, that members of the audience were quite astute in noting for themselves that the unionist camp members, to date, have not actually offered any arguments for the maintenance of the union, but instead are poking holes in the legality of the referendum, and trying to paint a negative picture of the SNP trying to do its own thing its own way. When this was pointed out painfully clearly to the panel by a young man, they actually looked stunned, as if this wasn’t the reaction they expected.
After this debate I feel that the pro-union camp may have misunderstood the opinion polls; they seem to think that a majority polled saying ‘no’ to independence means that they’ve already won the argument and just have to poo-poo the idea of independence and they’ll win the referendum. It appears to me that they could well lose the argument in exactly the same fashion that they lost the last election: not because they have an invalid point of view, but because they spectacularly failed to explain to the electorate what it is.
This referendum has no place for old school Westminster style negative campaigning; it didn’t work before, and it won’t work this time – the electorate are getting a bit more savvy. Instead, make reasoned, logical, simple arguments as to why one position is better over the other: so far the SNP are winning that argument hands down, as they haven’t actually met any opposition – or could it be that there simply aren’t any good, logical, sound reasons why the union should be maintained, other than ‘because Westminster told us it should’, and if that’s the case – why?



















