I’d better add my opinion to everybody else’s after pointing you to last night’s first edition of Scotland 2014. What are they going to call it next year? (I know, I know the answer but it’s a stupid title because it tells you nothing except maybe that it’s supposed to start at nearly quarter past eight.)
Was the set designed by Andy Warhol? I wondered at first if it was a solidarity statement with Glasgow Art School as the colours blazed and flared around Sarah.
If I were her, I’d object. How the hell is she supposed to match her wardrobe with that pulsing behind her? I’ve been in more sedate discos in the seventies. When I heard the low level signature music I thought it would burst into Stayin’ Alive, thus bringing the first reference of the Bee Gees to the referendum. (BT tell me they would be voting No).
The opening story was strong. I like Sam Polling. She looks like one of those women who instinctively suit leather trousers and would melt you with a stare if you said No Comment. Scary but nice. I’d tell her anything…ANYTHING…if she came after me with a mike.
I did rather think though I’d have preferred a government minister to get a studio grilling rather than a copper in one of those tunics like the ones the waiters wear in the sushi bar – black turtleneck, no buttons. Still, good stuff and just a bit chilling even when our expectation of the outsourcing carpetbaggers is so low.
Good to see Ken on telly again. Somebody seemed to decide he shouldn’t be on screen much a while ago and missed a trick. Whatever he does is unmistakable and it’s clever. Irony in broadcasting sounds easy. It isn’t.
Danny Alexander was the political heart of the show and was asked good strong questions and was given time to answer. But he got away with a lot. When the government is caught out lying to us over the future of our country, there should be no escape, no talking over, no elongated answers, just a finger-jabbing interruption and a voice that says ‘Minister’ but sounds like ‘Bastard’. Whenever I heard one of them say Scotland would be worse off after independence, I didn’t always challenge the numbers but the implication. ‘Are you proud that after 300 years of Union, your own country is too poor to stand on its own feet? Can you explain how 20 per cent of our children living in poverty is Better Together?’ It is clear to everyone except the die hards that the British case is built on sand. They have exaggerated from the start and show nothing but contempt for us. We will never know until we try it if Salmond’s case is solid but at least it’s clear that we’ve been subsidising the rest of the country for 30 years and no one denies the basics are in place for a robust new country. Britain’s debt alone is grounds for questioning their argument.
So I was disappointed that a lightweight like Danny got away with it and the problem for them now is that if they go ahead with a Yes person tonight, they have to give a similar impression. Sarah can’t do a Naughtie and hurrumph and contradict after making it so easy for No.
I didn’t know what the end of the programme was about, I’m afraid. If they think a hip young audience is tuning in, I’ve got news for them. I’m the nearest thing to a hippy watching Scottish current affairs at 10.30. And I’ve got my pension.
(I did like the STV debate though. Good, meaty and telling. Simple, really).by