Act of Union Debate is Ratings Winner

comments

• "I agree the production was pretty shoddy, but I found the debate interesting regardless. I think the absense of a great deal of English comment perhaps reflects the fact that most of England doesn't have much of an opinion either way on this topic. And why should they? The impact of independence would be far far more significant in Scotland who would change from c.10% to 100% of an independent country, than it would on England who would only move from around 90% to 100%. As such, finding using silence to represent English opinion was perhaps accurate."
  Ewan 28/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate
• "'A televised debate about the Act of Union between Scotland and England, broadcast on Tuesday evening, was a ratings winner, especially among Scots.' Hardly surprising when one remembers that all we in England could hear during the laughably misnamed 'debate' was 'Scotland, Scotland, Scotland'. The voices of 85% of the population of the so-called 'union' were almost entirely absent. Can anyone believe that the English will ever be allowed to discuss not just their own affairs but British issues as well while Scots are in charge?"
  Ian Lambton 21/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate
• "Considering the small contributions allowed the English viewpoint, they need not have turned up. Alexander promoted a line that has long since been discridited, at least among the English, who incidentally outnumber their Scots neighbours ten to one. Scots independence will affect the English so we cannot be denied a contribution to the process. It is not England that will grant Scots independence, that is not possible when England has no political voice and no distinct representation. Salmond was doing quite well until he started his all too familiar patronising of the English, a foolhardy act considering the English Nationalists will support Scots independence in order to achieve their own."
  Longshanks 21/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate
• "Nobody pointed out that Douglas Alexander is the Secretary of State for Scotland and has an open hand from Scotsman Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchecquer, for subsidising Scotland. However, Alexander is also Transport Minister for England and cancels projects for lack of funds. Any fool can see there is a conflict of interest there, which is why England not only needs its own parliament, but independence"
  Stephen Gash 21/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate
• "Christine Constable of the English Democrats was the best on the show. Pity she was not allowed more time, but then she is English so that's what we would expect of the Biased Broadcasting Corporation."
  Englishman 21/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate
• "Whenever there is any kind of programme or debate, it seems to present only the Scottish viewpoint. English nationalists, when they are rarely invited to participate are usually sidelined or ignored, with the issues viewed entirely through tartan-tinted spectacles. But then what can one expect? Great Britain today comprises of the nations and the regions. (No prizes for guessing which is which). The English are regarded as non-existent in terms of having a national identity and can be safely ignored. Well, to quote Rudyard Kipling, "The Saxons are grumbling, this isn't fair dealing"."
  Anglo 21/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate
• "BBC Scotland, BBC Wales, in England nothing. The above and BBC coverage of the "English" point of view (lack of) illustrates the "English" anger over the present state of affairs. Devolution here, devolution there, independence over there, independence around the corner, England spectates whilst others participate. The programme to which you refer was not a "debate" it was full of Scottish "wish lists". Everyone should remember that England is a country within the United Kingdom and as such merits a voice. WHERE IS THAT VOICE???"
  Patrick Harris 21/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate
• "Once again the programme concentrated on Scotland and the invited English guests were by and large snubbed. Is it possible to have a debate for the English without the Scottish point of view please?"
  Tally 21/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate
• "The programme was a mess. The contributors were awful. The presentors looked and sounded uncomfortable and the lighting reminded me of a 1970s Open University programme. However, most O.U. programmes had some intellectual base. After 300 hundred is this the best we can do? Sums up the state of our Current Affairs output. Embarrassing."
  Ray Cathode 18/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate
• "Jennie1 - Thanks for this. Mistake corrected. More haste, less speed. Or is it the other way around?"
  SilverLining 18/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate
• "I think that a journalistic website should know the Secretary of State for Scotland's actual name (Douglas, not Duncan)"
  Jennie1 18/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate
• "It was the most appaling mess in both production and presention terms. The discussion was stale and Paxman did his best to make clear he wanted to know what he was doing there. Earning your high salary Paxo."
  leith1 18/01/2007
  report content as inappropriate