THEY had different things to prove. Douglas Ross who won the booby prize at the first leaders’ debate. Patrick Harvie, who must have been aware that his co-leader would be a tough act to follow.
And they had questions to answer. Could Anas Sarwar continue to up his profile in a shiny new job? Would Nicola Sturgeon, holder of the political Lonsdale belt, survive being targeted by every other contender.
Their set-piece openers were just that. Most of us could have recited them before the off. Ross reprising his favourite “divisive referendum” jibes with a side order of “separatism”. Sarwar repeating his let’s concentrate on what unites us number, Harvie bemoaning the lack of climate change urgency, Rennie flagging up lack of mental health provision. Sturgeon emphasising that Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands was a priority but one which could only be addressed when the pandemic had been vanquished. So far so predictable.
READ MORE: STV debate: Independence is the winner as Harvie and Sturgeon trounce opponents
The different format gave scope for the leaders to question each other rather than field pre determined questions from a zooming audience.
Some of it was positively cosy – Harvie and Sturgeon agreeing on why Holyrood action was stymied by the lack of independence. Some of it quite sharp, Rennie palpably rattled by his pro-Europe credentials being questioned (and dismantled), Sarwar worrying away at the FM over QEUH deaths and failures like a dog with a familiar bone.
Zingers were in short supply. Harvie insisting that a referendum would open possibilities rather than wounds. Sarwar suggesting Ross and Sturgeon were only talking to the half of Scotland which agreed to them, telling Ross that his party was such a mess than even Ruth Davidson had walked away. (The battle lines drawn for second place on May 6 were all too clear with Ross twice asking for only list votes.)
Sturgeon challenging Ross over Westminster taking Holyrood to court over their incorporation of the United Nations convention on the rights of children. “Whatever Westminster tells you, you just do it.”
But overall this was less a debate than a rehearsal for another referendum campaign. The Tories, Labour and the LibDems, coalescing round shared Unionist postures and the SNP and Greens bemoaning the lack of opportunities implicit in Westminster calling the shots.
Tellingly, neither Alex nor George rated a mention.
READ MORE DEBATE ANALYSIS: Shona Craven on Willie Rennie's performance and George Kerevan hands out awards for the participants
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel