Salmond shouts his way to debate win

SCOTLAND First Minister Alec Salmond struck back in the second independence debate after he repeatedly shouted down his opponent Alistair Darling in an ill-tempered contest.

A snap poll by ICM showed 71% thought Mr Salmond had won the debate against just 29% for Mr Darling. Those figures represent quite a turnaround for Mr Salmond after Mr Darling's surprise win three weeks ago.

Nevertheless, with just over three weeks to go until polling day - and some postal voting taking place from this week - it was the least the Scottish Nationalist leader needed to do.

And yet, at this late stage, it still may not be enough.

For, although Mr Salmond was undoubtedly the clear victor last night, the standard of the debate at the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow was frankly appalling.

Indeed, it was so poor that it may have put off those who are undecided from voting altogether, something over which BBC Scotland moderator Glenn Campbell must be held responsible.

Campbell seemed content to allow Mr Salmond to talk over Mr Darling, often not allowing the former Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer the question fully.

And it had the effect of creating a rather unedifying spectacle with satirist Charlie Brooker best summing up the viewer's perspective on Twitter. "This sounds like eight debates at once," he wrote.

In fact, the debate was meant to have been pretty well-structured with opening statements followed by four defined sections - on the economy, on home affairs, on foreign affairs and on Scotland's immediate future after the referendum.

In the middle of the four topics, the pair also had the opportunity to cross-examine one another - but this had the purely predictable result of the audience just not being able to hear either of them.

Finally, there were the closing statements when at least Mr Salmond had the decency to allow a clearly defeated Mr Darling to speak uninterrupted at the end.

And so why, other than Mr Salmond's bawling tactics, had Mr Darling found things so tough?

Well, one thing the former Chancellor let slip quite early on in the debate was that Scotland would still be able to use the pound outside of a currency union.

Mr Salmond immediately seized on this - but Mr Darling correctly countered that such an arrangement would leave Scotland without access to a Central Bank and thus a lender of last resort.

Home affairs were tougher again for Labour MP Mr Darling as he stood on his podium having to defend some of the policies of David Cameron on the NHS and welfare cuts.

And there was a particularly hairy moment for him when an audience member accused Mr Darling of being a hypocrite because of his support, while in government, for NHS privatisation.

The MP for Edinburgh South West found the contest in the second half of the night more easy-going and there were fewer flashpoints.

The last section - on what will happen to Scotland after the vote - actually allowed some of the bitterness of the campaign to be tempered.

This was to the extent that, on account of victory in the referendum, Mr Salmond even offered Mr Darling a place in an all-party group to negotiate independence.

Mr Darling, of course, still hopes that will not be necessary - but it really is more difficult to tell after Mr Salmond's rambunctious performance last night. 

Ultimately, though, any swing to "Aye" will probably not be enough - and so my bold prediction for 18 September is still for a narrow "Naw" win of 53% to 47%.

The alternative Royal Wedding

Five alternative ways to enjoy Friday's big occasion as future King of England Prince William marries Catherine 'Kate' Middleton who he met at the University of St Andrews.

1. PLAY the Royal Wedding Drinking Game.
WITH now more than a quarter of a million 'Likes' on Facebook, it is fair to say a good proportion of the population will be literally raising a glass to the happy couple. Rules include:
"(1) If the Queen is on the screen you must be drinking. The woman has ruled the country for over 50 years, the least you can do is get destroyed in her honour.
(2) Any time Prince Harry appears all players must produce a Nazi salute. The last player to do so must consume 5 fingers/mouthfuls for their poor reactions."
Full details can be found on this Facebook page.

2. PUT a silly bet on
ALL manner of Royal Wedding Special bets are being offered by the bookmakers including the chance of anyone dropping the wedding ring, Kate Middleton jilting Prince William at the altar, the weather and - of course - the colour of the Queen's hat.
Oddschecker has a comprehensive guide to the bets available from each bookmaker.

3. PASS the sick bag
ALTHOUGH the wedding ceremony is finished just after midday and the fly-past by the Royal Air Force and Battle of Britain Memorial Flight takes place at 1.30pm, coverage on the BBC, ITV and Sky will continue until 4pm. There are more hours devoted on the evening.
But do not despair. Cumbrian graphic artist Lydia Leith has designed the perfect accessory for those who think they might get queasy at a series of commentators being rolled out to pass the time by giving their meaningless platitudes upon the wedding.
It may also be useful to deal with any fallout from anyone playing the Royal Wedding Drinking Game (see above) and can double up as a souvenir of the event.
Sick bags, in red or blue, are available from her website here for £3.00 each +£1.20p&p - as seen on the BBC here.

4. AVOID the suffocating coverage of every media outlet by taking a sideways look
RATHER than leafing through pages upon pages of Royal Wedding guides produced by every single newspaper in the UK, sit down with a cuppa and read The Guardian's G2 Not the Royal Wedding guide - including a special TV Go Home column by Charlie Brooker.
Alternatively, Friday 29 April is the latest release date for the bi-weekly satirical magazine Private Eye. It is bound to be a bumper issue on the basis of this front-page from when Prince William proposed in November last year.
Finally, one publication unlikely to carry a special edition is the Scottish newspaper Caledonian Mercury who reported the announcement of their engagement, as follows:
"Two people who went to university together are to get married, it has emerged.
"William Windsor (or possibly Wales or possibly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) and Kate Middleton, both 28, met at St Andrews University eight years ago."  

5. ATTEND an alternative street party
FOR those with a great enough sense of injustice about using taxpayers' money to fund the Royal Wedding, political pressure group Republic is holding a street party from 11.30am at Red Lion Square in London.
The website says: "We've taken a 'traditional' royalist street party as our inspiration, but there will be one key difference. We'll be celebrating democracy and people-power rather than inherited privilege."
Full details of the event in the Holburn area on Republic's website here.

Brooker grows up and bows out

CHARLIE BROOKER brought down the curtain on 10 years of satirical pessimism and scathing cynicism yesterday by announcing he was leaving his Screen Burn column in the Guardian with immediate effect.

In a sadly somewhat self-gratifying final submission, Brooker gives various reasons for quitting the television review piece. Firstly, he explains that "11 years of essentially rewriting the phrase 'X is an arsehole'... is enough for anyone".

His departure does not stop from using this final article to recall some of finest moments over the years.

These have included hilarious comparisons between Jeremy Kyle and Satan, Alan Sugar and Mrs Tiggywinkle, and - perhaps best of all - Ann Widdecombe's face and "a haunted cave in Poland".

But Brooker now seems regretful of his treatment to certain celebs with his desire to see Jamie Cullum "sealed in a barrel and kicked into the ocean" causing him most guilt.

It is only by reading further, however, that Brooker's real reasoning for quitting starts to become clearer - and even then it is not spelt out in black and white.

He laments the fact that it was not only television presenters on the end of his wrath but, more often, the non-celebrities cast into the public eye through a myriad of reality television shows.

It is not a surprise that Brooker found so much material in reality TV with its "ceaseless parade of instant hate figures, plucked from obscurity and flung onscreen for us all to sneer and point at".

But he now feels that he was a "witless bully" who had fallen "into the trap of writing from the point of view of a cartoon persona".

Perhaps the real reason why Brooker has changed is the fact that he has grown up and fallen in love.

His marriage to former Blue Peter presenter Konnie Huq after a whirlwind romance certainly seems to have softened him up. More pertinently, this is also the same Ms Huq who now fronts the X Factor spin-off show on ITV2.

I guess Brooker simply could not put himself in the hypocritical position of mocking hopeless contestants on X Factor at the same time as his wife puts a comforting arm around them.

He does not mention this reasoning specifically in his final column. Indeed, the closest he comes to admitting he has become too close to the world of television personalities himself, or - as he puts it - "one of 'them'".

Even this admission will come as no surprise to anyone who has followed his more recent television work closely.

Outside of Screen Burn, Brooker was lauded for the way in which he provided examples of dumbing down and exposed short-cuts at the highest levels of television media on his BBC4 show Screenwipe and its current affairs spin-off Newswipe.

However, his most recent television offering, You Have Been Watching, a quiz-show format on Channel 4, did not have the same cult appeal and led to claims from fans in cyber-space that he was losing his edge.

At the end of his final Screen Burn, Brooker attempts to soften the blow to his readers by promising a new column later this year.

But, in a life in which starting a family seems to be the priority, it is hard to see him pulling punches with anything like the same weight.

Election 2010: Rules of engagement

PARTY LEADERS and broadcasters finally agreed the rules this week for the debates in the run-up to the general election, which is expected to be on 6th May.

There will be three debates, one each on ITV, Sky and the BBC in that order. Each programme will last 90 minutes and the first half of each debate will focus on separate themes with the second half as an open forum.

The first debate, moderated by ITV anchor Alaistair Stewart, will place an emphasis on domestic affairs such as the state of NHS, schools, law and order, and immigration.

Adam Boulton will moderate the next debate on Sky which will be focused on international affairs including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, international relations, terrorism and climate change.

The final programme on the BBC will have the economy as its theme and David Dimbleby as its moderator with questions expected on taxation, the deficit, the recession and spending on public services.

While these debates have been commonplace across the Atlantic since 1960, the three shows in the run-up to the election will be the first of their kind in the UK.

Before the 1997 election, then Prime Minister John Major was in support of having such debates but the parties and broadcasters could not agree on a format so nothing ever took place.

In the meantime, Mr Major's successor Tony Blair argued against the need for them, stating that the weekly Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons was sufficient.

But, lagging behind in the polls in a way in which Mr Blair never was, current PM Gordon Brown had little option but to support the idea when the issue was raised again by Sky News.

The debates have already been surrounded by controversy after the exclusion of the nationalist parties, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and UKIP who finished second in the European elections last June.

The fact is, though, that none of those parties is going to form part of the next government in Westminster whereas even the Liberal Democrats could play a vital role in the case of a hung parliament.

Others have argued that the debates will further encourage a presidential-style of leadership but I personally think that debates are an excellent way to hold leaders and potential leaders to account.

It is a shame, then, that fully 76 points will be used to regulate the discussion, a list of which can be viewed here on The Guardian website.

Of course, there must be rules to a debate but some of the points make it possible for debate to be stifled and others seem to make it too easy for politicians to wriggle off the hook.

For instance, take points 46. to 50. which are based on time limits:

46.Each leader will make an opening statement on the theme of the debate lasting for 1 minute. After the three opening statements the moderator will take the first question on the agreed theme. There will be closing statements of 1 minute 30 seconds from all three leaders at the end of the 90 minutes.
47.Each leader will have 1 minute to answer the question.
48.Each leader will then have 1 minute to respond to the answers.
49.The moderator may then open the discussion to free debate between the leaders for up to 4 minutes on merit.
50.The length of the debate on each question will be decided by the programme editor.

The first time limits in point 46. can be seen as a positive rule in that at least it ensures the opening and closing statements from the leaders will be concise.

But, of the other limits in points 47. and 48., 60 seconds seems a hardly adequate enough period for the most complex questions to be answered.

And even if four minutes of free debate follows, it is unlikely to be long enough if half of that time is spent making cheap shots at each other.

More disappointing still is the level of restrictions placed on the number of questions on each topic. Points 29. and 30. are as follows:

29.half the programme will be based on the agreed theme. Within that portion of the programme, a maximum of three questions will be selected on a single sub-theme.
30.half the programme will be unthemed. In this portion of the programme, a maximum of two questions will be selected on a single subject.

While these restrictions should ensure quite a wide-ranging debate within the theme, it seems to me that it will be all too easy for the leaders to avoid giving a proper answer.

Certainly, it will be interesting to see how often the moderator will use point 62. to seek factual clarification, especially as point 63. emphasises the importance of their role is in moderating the debate, not being part of it.

The other major restriction in the line of questioning can be found in points 25.-26. which state:

25.each question will be relevant to all three party leaders.
26.no question shall focus on one party or one leader.

The inability to question the leaders individually on issues relating directly to them surely goes against a big point of the debate which is to assess the characteristics of each leader.

It will also force the submitted questions to become far too generalised.

Don't get me wrong - I am pleased that British politics has finally opened its eyes to the need for formal debates between the main party leaders before elections.

I expect that from now on the debates will become permanent fixtures in the election calendar, for general elections at least.

But I also expect that, unless any of the leaders makes a tremendous gaffe in these three debates, politicians will become more relaxed about the idea in the future.

Less regulation will follow and that is surely the way forward for the proper free-flowing debate which the public is likely to be denied this time.

UPDATE: For a more light-hearted view on how to improve the election debates, may I direct you to the latest Guardian column by the excellent Charlie Brooker.

Brooker's back with Newswipe

SATIRICAL columnist and presenter Charlie Brooker returns tonight with a second series of Newswipe, the current affairs offshoot from television review show Screenwipe.

Except for links when Brooker is sat behind a big desk in a mock up of a news studio, Newswipe is presented in much the same way as Screenwipe.

Brooker more commonly sits on his own on a sofa with a single camera in what purports to be his flat, providing a scathing commentary on the media's coverage of news events.

In his Guardian column prior to the first series of Newswipe last year, Brooker explained that the show was "not aimed at political junkies... [but] at people like me - average types who feel like they've fallen behind and are a touch ashamed about it".

As a matter of fact, overlooking the occasional intentional vulgarity, some of the critical analysis in the actual content would not look out of place in an academic thesis.

In fact, it could be argued that Brooker sheds more of the light of truth on the industry than any higher educational establishment ever has.

Brooker focuses mainly on broadcasting and the struggles of 24-hour news channels to fill all the hours of the day.

In the first series, broadcast in March and April, this was no more evident than when heavy February snowfall led the BBC News Channel to use thousands of public photographs to fill air-time.

He also criticised the widespread use of ludicrous gimmicks to explain complex subjects, such as the collapse of the economy. And he despaired at the pointlessness of some graphics showing meaningless percentages.

There was analysis of the media's treatment of grief and, in particular, the growing emphasis on emotion rather than facts ever since the death of Princess Diana in 1997.

This kind of reporting was widespread in all media forms after reality television's Jade Goody died.

According to Brooker, the tabloid newspapers "made a U-turn so big, it was visible from space". OK! magazine shamefully even went so far as to produce a tribute edition while she was still alive.

Another part of the series showed how rolling news coverage missed the point of the majority of the G20 protesters, and missed the biggest story of them all - the death of Ian Tomlinson.

Tomlinson died of a heart attack shortly after being shoved to the ground by an overzealous police officer as he made his way home from work through the protests.

Despite saturation coverage, it took footage from a person's mobile phone and rare "good, old-fashioned" investigative reporting to reveal the story in The Guardian.

Recently, Brooker has become more of a mainstream commentator with more television reviews on his Channel 4 series, You Have Been Watching, in summer 2009.

He also appeared alongside David Mitchell on C4's annual Big Fat Quiz Of The Year over Christmas.

Of course, there is nothing necessarily wrong with Brooker getting his voice heard on a more recognisable channel than BBC4.

But most of his fans would agree that he is at his best on Newswipe/Screenwipe when slouched behind the desk or on the sofa, slagging off the latest incredulous media own goal.

Newswipe with Charlie Brooker is on BBC4 at 10.30pm. Find out more about the upcoming series on his Twitter account, here.