They said this would be the most important debate in Scotland's history.
Oddly, Salmond opened it by referencing the Commonwealth Games, thereby instantly annoying most of us who hate to see a politician piggy-back on the achievements of others. He wisely moved on to asking why Scotland has food banks sitting alongside billion-pound nukes. This should have been easy territory for him yet, in this opening sequence, he seemed subdued. There was none of his usual boom and swagger. Perhaps this was the influence of his much-mocked life coach? It's known that Salmond's perceived smugness repels many voters, so perhaps he was advised to play it down - but not into blandness. Bland is the territory of Darling, surely?
No, not tonight. Darling actually had some vigour to him. In making his opening pitch he spoke directly to the camera which was an adventurous move for this usually prim politician. Although any buccaneering spirit wilted as he soon retreated behind his favourite 'best of both worlds' cliche, before foolishly declaring his arguments aren't about patriotism, thereby dismissing all of those who've arrived at a Yes vote based on intellect, not emotion or Braveheart face paints.
However, despite this wobble, Darling showed rare spirit. 'I didn't vote for him but I'm stuck with him!' he said, pointing at Salmond and turning the Yes campaign's strongest argument against them. 'Contemplate for one minute you might be wrong!' he shouted, drawing cheers from the crowd. Then he started playing at Paxman, asking repeatedly what Salmond's currency plan was. He was comfortable, easy and fluent here, with the first audience boos coming in for Salmond.
But just as Salmond kept floundering on currency, so Darling kept returning to it, suggesting it's his only hopeful way of denting the Yes campaign. By clinging to the topic he eventually weakened his performance.
Whilst Darling seemed suffused with a rare energy, Salmond often seemed feeble. He wasn't playing to his strengths tonight. He was milder, less abrasive, and resorted to feeble jokes about outer space and pandas. Was this an attempt to be witty, to have us all siding with him? If so, it just made the staid and serious Darling look statesmanlike. In contrast, Salmond was wandering out from his podium and quoting Burns. Was he trying to be folksy instead of smug? I detect the influence of the life coach again. No, he needs to ditch this approach and be his usual bombastic self, although at least he stayed clear of his kailyard talk of 'heebie jeebies' and being 'feart'.
Amidst the unusually mild Salmond and the even more unusually spirited Darling, the best moment came when Ponsonby told the audience to pipe down and show respect. How wonderful! The worst thing for the campaign would be an apathetic audience or, god forbid, a respectful one.
Despite Salmond's efforts, the life coach needn't worry. His lacklustre performance will determine nothing and neither will Darling's rare display of spirit and facial expression. We're not being asked to vote for these men, or their parties. Indeed, most of us will never meet this pair and so their performance means little. Most voters will meet, not politicians, but canvassers at the door and campaigners at the stall. They'll discuss the issues with friends and colleagues. The doorstep and the canteen and social media are where things will be thrashed out and decided. The main purpose of this TV debate was to spark another debate amongst ourselves. So thanks chaps, but we'll take it from here.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article