Can anyone imagine Lamont, Rennie or Davidson - or Cameron, Clegg or Miliband - arguing economically and fiscally with such competence?
Alex Salmond's clear answers on a range of questions won't stop unionists asking same questions again and again.
Scotland has the right man at the right time in its history - it has chosen him twice, and will choose independence in the referendum.
Sadly, we don’t have to imagine Johann Lamont on the economy and fiscal matters – here she is. Over-promoted, economically and fiscally inadequate, and way out of her depth. Scottish Labour should not have put a decent, hard-working politician in this unenviable position. I like her, I believe she cares - but she should not have put herself forward for this job. And, since she does care about Scotland and Scots, she's in the wrong party ...
Posts
She had a lot of time to answer the questions,and she got such an easy ride,it was on an old cuddy not a bronco.
ReplyDeleteFar from getting an easy ride, it was the superb skill of Isabel Fraser that demonstrated how little Lamont had to say.
ReplyDeleteJ Lamont is out of her depth entirely - I think most people would figure that.
ReplyDeleteI agree Isabel Frazer is good.
I remain a republican to my core on principal but a surprising thing happened watching the Salmond interview - he made a simple compelling case as to why the Queen is important to those who require the 'social union' -- if that's what people need then fine -- no big deal. Independence with the queen as head of state is still indpendence.
Thanks for the vids Peter
Peter, if I was a floating voter and concerned about the referendum of 2014, I would have to be left feeling a little shaken with the questions of Andrew Neil to Alex Salmond.
ReplyDeleteThey were designed to prise open perceived weaknesses in the SNP stance and AS's responses, were confident, but have to be framed within the powers available; eg, fiscal leverage, EU admission hypothesis, etc.
He will always be constrained and restricted and quite simply unable to produce conclusive, concise answers to such questions. It's gonna get real tough!
Thankfully, we're told the May local election date will see the starters gun fire for a "YES campaign" - then will be the time to clearly dot the "i's" and cross all the "t's".
But, don't expect to see these same water-muddying questions disappear, our intrepid "seekers-after-the-truth" will continue to be selectively myopic, cynically deaf and increasingly manic.
His answers were definitive enouigh for me.
ReplyDeleteHis answers were good enough for me too, but we deal here with a media establishment hell-bent on mischief and good enough in our language isn't what fits their agenda, so hold onto your hat it's gonna be a very bumpy ride.
DeleteIt's turned into a queer world where Al Jazeera, Russia Today and Press TV (of Iran, I believe) can give a more in-depth, informative and objective analysis than that of our home-grown channels.
He was given peak airtime to state his views and give his answers, which he did, effectively and superbly as always.
ReplyDeleteDo you expect Andrew Neil to be deferential and respectful, and not ask difficult questions. The were simplistic, and in the Neil/Paxman style, but they elicited the answers we need to hear. I prefer the Isabel Fraser style myslef, infinitely more subtle and persuasive.
Andrew Neil behaves in exactly the same way with other politicians, and gives them just as hard a time.
I thought Neil was surprisingly (but then that is in view of the Paxman 'performance') balanced. Some of his questions were a bit silly. What nation in today's world acts completely without constraints? All nations--unless they are outlaw nations--are constrained by treaty obligations and so they should be. None the less, his questions brought up points that Salmond needed to address and Salmond did so calmly and competently, as always.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeanne.
ReplyDeleteregards,
Peter
The woman does not have a scubies and is so out of her depth she is an embarrassment!
ReplyDelete