It is of strong importance, but I do think of the two things as separable. That, I think, is the important distinction we should draw from that historical episode that you refer to. In the historical episode you refer to, the central bank was actually issuing money so that the government could spend it. If instead there is a stock of debt in the economy already, people have willingly purchased that debt, and now the central bank goes out and buys some of that debt at a higher price so that their interest rate is lower. What that does is put additional liquidity into the system, cause people to re-evaluate what the interest rates will be for investment or what have you over the course of the next couple of years, and perhaps influence their decision-making and strengthen the economy.
At a minimum what it does is give them assurance for the liquidity they need; they don't have to be concerned about the kind of market volatility that can deter investments. So they get extra certainty from it.
As a consequence, you're not having a massive impact on the real side, but on the margin. What the literature is showing us is that the U.S. program has influenced the economy and made it a little stronger than it otherwise would be. That's a good thing. Later on, of course, it has to get wound down just like every other such program.
But I think quite separately the U.S. is working on its own budget deficit, in different ways than we do here. That's a separate issue to the bond purchase program that the Federal Reserve is engaged in.