Darling’s bluff

Those lucky enough to get STV, or make it through the STV’s apparent lack of bandwidth, were treated to a heated debate between Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond and the leader of the “No” campaign and former Labour Chancellor Alastair Darling.

Darling came out as the winner, if you believe the polls. The expectations on him were so low, that the mere fact he stood up to the attack-dog that Alex Salmond is, is an accomplishment. He had points. Shabby and patronising for the Scots, but he did. Salmond should have known that his “you said, he said” style wouldn’t be enough in a live debate. He failed where he could have triumphed.

I am more interested however, in the reactions to the debate rather than the debate itself, since it gave us nothing new. These reactions paint a clear picture of why Westminster politics and the London-centric media simply don't get what is being debated here. It was a shameful moment for both.

Darling based most of his attacks on the currency question. To anyone who understands even a little bit about economics, the argument is silly. That’s not how currencies work. The only reason Darling’s bluff worked, is because an elected official like Salmond can't possibly say that “well, it’s not the end of the world in terms of monetary policy, quite the opposite”.

I've written about this before: The pound is an expensive currency that’s crowding out manufacturing and stifles exports. There are consecutive front page stories in the financial press about this and how much it effect’s the economy. This year alone, big UK companies lost one billion in profit because of the price of the pound.

But Salmond can't say that, because it would be unstatesmanlike. So Darling’s bluff worked. And what did the London media say? That he won because “he spoke economics”. Well, he didn’t. He spoke the usual “this is too complicated for you plebs, leave it to your betters”, really misinforming people on how currencies bloody work.

If he had actually produced a sound argument, this would be reflected in the “don’t know” voters after the end of the debate. They thought Alex Salmond had won, despite Darling’s apparent victory. It was only the strong conviction of the “No” votes that Darling had won, that produced the final verdict. He just pandered to people’s doubts about the possibility of a monetary union. This was once again “project fear”.

But what was even worse, people started commenting on how this could bring Darling back to the Labour front-bench. Wow. No better indicator of how skewed the world of Westminster politics is, that in this debate on the future of a country, people are seeing a pretty opportunity to make a proverbial shilling.

The independence referendum is not about Salmond or Darling. It’s not about the SNP or Labour. But those are the only lens available to the establishment. It’s beyond worrying to see the “talent” manning our national press and politics fail so hard.

Personally, while my sympathies lie with independence, I am trying to maintain a neutral perspective. But so far, the arguments of the No side are merely patronising and an insult to what little intelligence I possess. The Yes campaign’s are often naive, but they aren’t, you know, bogus.

I hope that at some point we get to have this conversation like adults, in a manner that will look less like an episode from “The thick of it”.