Longshanker wrote:
The SNP/Yes campaign are currently under the impression that BetterTogether have used up all their firepower. The Yessers reckon their own powder for return fire is dry.
But the thing is, the 'No' camp have barely needed to raise a finger against the 'Bitter Apart' Brigade - the SNP (and President of the EU Commission) have done all the heavy lifting for them!
I was sat on my settee watching
Question Time when Nicola Sturgeon lied through gritted teeth in front of the cameras about the SNP's fictional EU legal advice that they had to take legal steps (at Scots' taxpayer's expense) to "protect", only a few weeks back. I have eyes and ears; I don't need anyone else to twist the basic facts of this situation and tell me that somehow, my very senses deceived me on this. The bottom line is that the SNP leadership - primarily, but not just Salmond in isolation - was caught absolutely red-handed blatently lying to their own people and perhaps even more importantly, exposed as being completely and utterly half-arsed on a matter so fundamentally important to the independence of Scotland so as to beggar belief. Naivety doesn't even begin to describe this latter point; no doubt the Scots electorate - even those 'normal', perfectly sensible Nationalist-inclined folks (not hate-blinded, idiotic, off-their-tits cybernats, obv.) - must've looked on in abject horror at all of this? The prospect of having such inept, blatantly dishonest people running their country as a small, standalone state in such a manner, would've surely sent a shiver down their collective spines akin to pouring liquid helium down the back of their shirts?
This alone would be quite bad enough, but then there's also the small matter of Mr Barroso's letter concerning the status of an independent Scotland within the EU - I am amazed at the bald, stark, very un-EUish, unequivocal language he used and no-one, almost no matter how deluded or hate-filled, could possibly avoid the absolutely clear ramifications of this, even if they choose not to admit it to others and/or themselves, for reason(s) best known to themselves. But most people in this debate, including myself and irrespective of which side we're on, are interested in the *truth*, not some self-appointed third party commentator's wishful thinking. In this regard, Mr Barroso provided us with what the SNP so dismally refused to do, no doubt because they were too scared, or too stupid/arrogant, to find out?
Of course, even aside from even these matters, there's also been the nasty Orwellian spectacle of Salmond's lies in Parliament and underhand attempts at amending Parliamentary records "on the QT" when busted by Labour, in the vain hope that no-one would notice or find out (like, as if), not to mention strutting round like some post-prandial peacock. You mention elsewhere that you think Salmond is part asset, part liability? I'd be inclined to think exclusively the latter, personally. Don't forget, in addition to the above, he's also been proven to have been catastrophically and demonstrably wrong about so many other things as well. Imagine if Scotland became independent in 2008 - with its toxic, about to fail banks - and had adopted the Euro to boot, precisely as he would've dearly wanted at the time? Shit the bed, it doesn't even bear thinking about.
Quote:
The Yes campaign have significantly more committed grass rooters on the ground prepared to chap the doors and evangelise on the potential of MacNirvana for the Scots.
That might well be true, but they've also got the much-reviled cybernats in the mix as well; many of whom already seemingly blocked from mainstream online discussion/debate resources (fully two years before the actual referendum date) presumably because those mainstream people - important, influential commentators among them - just cannot stand the aggression, rudeness, outright trolling and sheer lack of empathy/complete inability to see the other side of the argument or even just the truth of a given situation?
As I've said before, I regard the Scots as being quite the most delightful, friendliest, most accommodating people on Earth. I love going to Scotland, so much so that Lady R and I holidayed there only a couple of weeks ago (in the Highlands). On 2 January, not even New Years Day itself, I had complete strangers hugging me and my dog in the street and shaking my hand in the middle of the day, wishing me a Happy New Year, as I walked my dog, genuinely interested and delighted that I was visiting their beautiful country and so on, telling me all the best places to go. I looked like a slightly disheveled, unshaven middle aged man; my dog is a large male Rottweiler. Most people in Cheshire, where I live, look down their noses at me, if they acknowledge me at all - the difference could not be more pronounced. I love Scotland and the Scots and would love to live there.... but my point here is that, surely people like that, looking at the typical antics of the cybernats, as exercised in their own name, recoil in horror? Regardless of whether they actually agree with part of what they're saying, or not, they are surely a PR disaster for the SNP and Nationalist argument in general?
That 28% figure is, like I have said, inarguably very revealing.
Quote:
It's worth noting that support for the Home Rule vote in 1979 was around 61% for the Yessers one week before the actual vote. It plummeted 10% in that week due to some heavy duty scaremongering from the Unionist camp. At the time, the most heard line from Unionists, due to the 'rigged' 40% rule, was that not voting was the same as a No vote. That part explained why, on turnout figures, the Yes vote won fair and square with 51%.
I'd make the general point that Scotland, the UK, the EU and the world in general is a very different place to 1979 - people are (quite rightly) far more scared now, than they were then. They can surely see that given the economic storm that has broken - and will continue to break - and that will mean, rightly or wrongly, that inertia will likely have a much higher influence now, as compared to those entirely different, idealistic times. Most normal people, living in Scotland, have too much to lose - their jobs, their homes. They are concerned for their children and dependents; people who are relying on them. It's easy to be politically idealistic and naive when you have absolutely nothing and nothing to lose, but that's not true of the vast majority of people.
I'd also mention that oil and particularly gas prices are likely to plummet once shale gas (and oil) production comes online all around the world (England very much included, as indeed great swathes of mainland Europe), spookily enough within the next 2 years. Russia are already panicking about it; they know what's round the corner. This will, I'm sure, blast a huge hole into the already ludicrous economic arguments for independence of the SNP - such as they are.
Quote:
You might also find this piece interesting.
http://www.whitehall1212.blogspot.co.uk ... endum.htmlWhat plainer signal could there be that Salmond's expecting to lose.
If the SNP lose, which they will, it'll be 20 years minimum before another referendum, and personally I'd say closer to 30 years - whatever Salmond or anyone else in the SNP thinks in terms of contingency planning.