The less-deserving pro-independence website

Wings Over Scotland

On the other side of fear

Posted on September 05, 2013 by

It’s been a remarkable week in opinion polling, with YouGov calling the independence referendum for No on Sunday, Panelbase calling it for Yes on Monday, and TNS-BMRB, according to Prof John Curtice, calling it for Don’t Know by Wednesday.


When you look at those results more carefully it becomes apparent that only the initial YouGov poll holds good news for the No camp, and the reason for this comes down to the psychology of change.

Elizabeth Kübler-Ross was a psychiatrist that identified the ‘Five Stages of Grief’, a process by which people cope with tragedy and mourning. Her model was later adapted and correlated to how humans deal with change, becoming known as the emotional change curve.


Kübler-Ross stated that any change initially meets with shock; a sort of knee-jerk reaction to impending change, which is then followed by resistance as people look to defend what they already have and are familiar with – it’s just human nature to be cautious of change.

However, over time eventually the prospect of change becomes ‘normalised’ and the person begins to question their standpoint in light of the new information. If that new information can cause doubts in a person’s view of the current system, they’ll be more receptive to changes to fix that problem.

This is why a swing to ‘undecided’ is so important right now. These people are not yet Yes voters, but they have begun to question the status quo, and in so doing, are on their way to accepting that there are other solutions to the issues they face.

Once a person has accepted that there’s need for change and an available alternative, they begin to examine the options and weigh up their response. This can still be a return to the status quo, but nevertheless is the route by which people are moved from No, to undecided, to Yes. The key is getting the process started in the first place – and for that we have to thank the “Better Together” campaign.

Terror is the main weapon of the anti-independence alliance, acknowledged by its own internal naming as “Project Fear”. It’s an enterprise devoid of hope and alternatives, which trumpets that the ‘status quo’ of today is as good as it gets – mainly because what’s on offer tomorrow isn’t the status quo, but something measurably worse.

“Better Together” depicts each and every aspect of independence as negative, full of danger and impossible to achieve. The campaign is desperate to instil fear into the public over independence, ironically to reflect its own fear. (Because the briefest glance at those driving the campaign shows a group of people with a very great deal to lose personally – mostly those currently occupying Scottish seats at Westminster.)

The conflict between the forces of change and stasis was described by Kurt Lewin in 1951 in his famous “force field analysis” concept, which looked at the psychology of change and how progressive forces are cancelled out by restraining forces until the equilibrium holding them in place is altered.

Force field analysis is a diagnostic technique which has been applied to ways of looking at the variables involved in determining whether organisational change will occur. It’s based on the concept of ‘forces’, a term which refers to the perceptions of people about a particular factor of change and its influence.

The theory says that when the driving forces are less than or equal to the resisting forces then the desired change will not happen. If you want change, you need to alter the balance of forces restraining it.

In the independence referendum the driving forces are concepts such as better democratic accountability (getting the government we vote for, not the one England chooses), a fairer society (controlling welfare) and positive choices (spending money on public services rather than weapons against an imagined threat).

The restraining forces, on the other hand, are ‘fears’ – being poor, being isolated, being vulnerable to attack. The system Lewin devised shows that in order to facilitate change, you first have to remove the restraining forces holding that change back in order to allow people to accept the new proposed scenario.

Each question answered is less force to overcome for change, and although it’s never possible to answer every question (because you can’t predict the future with certainty), you only need to answer enough to move the equilibrium.

Simply dismissing the fears as absurd or scaremongering doesn’t have the desired effect, because it provides no comforting information to the voter fearful of change. Instead, the fear has to be explored and addressed to show that it’s not real. This was backed up in recent polling showing that the more people feel informed about independence the more likely they are to vote Yes.

It is for this reason that Yes Scotland should be thanking its counterparts for their efforts to date, as without them the public would not have been exposed to the stream of reasoned and logical rebuttals put forward by Yes campaigners, mainly in online media. Only by confronting and debunking each fear can the equilibrium be moved.

Lewin formulated three fundamental assertions about force fields and change:

(1) Increasing the driving forces causes an increase in the resisting forces; the current equilibrium doesn’t change but is maintained under increased tension.

For some people you can point out positives until you’re blue in the face, but if their fear still eclipses the force of your positive argument you don’t move the equilibrium, just make it more strained.

(2) Reducing resisting forces is preferable because it allows movement towards the desired state, without increasing tension.

Explaining the issue, exploring options and likely outcomes, and offering solutions can all help alleviate the fear and make the person more receptive to other benefits. This task has fallen largely to online sites because – quite aside from any bias towards Unionism – the traditional media believes that scare stories sell more newspapers.

(3) Group norms are an important force in shaping organisational change.

This can also be called the “shyness factor”, where a person is unwilling to go against the group for fear of being criticised. Humans are social animals and desire to be accepted. Showing them they aren’t alone can remove the resistance.

Group norms are vital to overcome if you wish to effect change – it’s easier to go with the crowd than stand out and be different. This is why the grassroots nature of the Yes campaign is important – it provides environments where voting Yes is the norm, stigma is removed and people can voice their opinions openly.

Clearly therefore, it could be argued that without the No campaign’s endless prophecies of doom, the Yes movement would struggle to gain traction.

But why would a pro-independence site like this one give away the secret? Because we’re sure “Better Together” knows it already. But just as Labour in Scotland keep battering away at a proven failure of an anti-SNP strategy (oppose everything reflexively regardless of its individual merit, smear and belittle Alex Salmond and his party at every turn), the No camp simply doesn’t have anything else in its arsenal.

Print Friendly

    111 to “On the other side of fear”

    1. Luigi says:

      Interesting article, Scott.
      It certainly explains how  support for independence could drop after that momentous, earth shaking event in 2011.  We are probably all at different stages along the EC curve now, although certain Labour politicians still appear to be stuck in the denial phase after the first shock in 2007!

    2. ayemachrihanish says:

      And so Rev,
      we have Michael Kelly’s desperate claims of Scot’s and their misguided visions of past Scottish glories
      Warning we’re too wee, too stupid FFS don’t allow hope and ambition to drive a decision that break up a pact that has delivered for Scots…….
      Glasgow: Jobless Capital of the UK

      Kelly: Denial, Denial, Denial

    3. Andrew Morton says:

      This explains what I have felt in my bones about the timing of the referendum. The reason Cameron and other Westminster politicians wanted a quick referendum is that they knew that that would find the voters in the Denial and Resistance phase of the process. The Yes campaign realised that it was far better to catch them at the Examination and Commitment stage.
      i think that No have shot their bolt and that Yes are right to wait further before going on the attack despite what commentators like Ian McWhirter say.

    4. Feil Gype says:

      ‘However, over time eventually the prospect of change becomes ‘normalised’ and the person begins to question their standpoint in light of the new information’  …which is why the unionist wanted the referendum immediately the SNP got the majority government in 2011.

      *Andrew Morton … I hadnt read your post but great minds etc ……

    5. HandandShrimp says:

      I see Severin has a piece in the Guardian trying to lead opinion and criticise the Panel Base poll but is slipping in the TNS data as if fact, indeed coming below the line to defend the TNS weighting.
      Who did TNS run that poll for?
      I sometimes wonder if Severin is neutral btw  😉  

    6. ianbrotherhood says:

      ‘…the “shyness factor”, where a person is unwilling to go against the group for fear of being criticised. Humans are social animals and desire to be accepted. Showing them they aren’t alone can remove the resistance.’
      Powerful reason to get those car stickers in place. Mine have been on for six or seven weeks, but there hasn’t been a morning when I haven’t gone out with a wee bit trepidation. So far, so good – no panned-in windaes, scratches, or anything else unpleasant. And I’m in an area which could fairly be described as ‘broadly’ unionist. 
      Just lately, in the Morrison’s car-par alone (on separate occasions) I’ve spotted three different vehicles with Yes stickers. (NB – if you can, get the blue ones- the white ones are hopeless.) 

    7. X_Sticks says:

      Great piece as usual Scott.
      Fear of change is our biggest enemy. If we can find ways to overcome that we wil be home and dry.
      Fear of change is the unionists only weapon – hence Project Fear.
      Thankfully we now have the internet, so all the media lies and spin no longer have the effect they once had. They can now be questioned and exposed. Viz the closure of the BBC blogs. THey don’t like the internet at all! Unfortunately for them there’s nothing they can do about it!
      We will win.

    8. Murray McCallum says:

      Great article Scott.
      I also think “Moscovici and Minority Influence” can offer some idea of what is happening and supports your theme.  The ongoing incredible negativity of the No camp is something to behold. They can’t go into reverse gear now.

    9. HandandShrimp says:

      I suppose it leads back to Foulkes’ accusation that the SNP are deliberately running the country well in order to make people like Scotland being a better place to live….or something like that.  🙂

    10. HandandShrimp says:

      Coincidently, I said over on the Guardian that somewhat ironically Project Fear are fightened to change tack even though they can see this is not paying the dividends they thought it would.

    11. Kenny Campbell says:

      Denial of DEVO+ option was always the worst thing unionists could have done…..After centuries of Divide and Conquer they forgot that tactic at the critical moment due mostly to their blind rage at the SNP….

    12. HeatherMcLean says:

      Every cloud has a silver lining!

    13. Quick the suns oot says:

      The front page of Edinburgh evening news paper edition this lunchtime
      fear gets physical, absolutely shocking.

    14. David McEwan Hill says:

      Michael Kelly gets a mention again These anti Scots of Irish descent should be exposed
      Kelly, Murphy, McMahon spring to mind but there are dozens of them.
      Ask them the question publicly.
      ” If this was 1920 and you were in Dublin what flag would you be flying? The Union Jack or the Tricolour?”
      They can’t answer that question honestly

    15. Angus McPhee says:

      ” but something measurably worse.”

      really? “immeasurably worse” seems more appropriate, do we really have a definitive way to judge how bad it can get?

    16. wee jamie says:

      As  you say Luigi, a very interesting article, although it doesn’t take onto account the obtuse and thrawin nature of the average Scot, we are world renowned for our obstinacy , and I think we are far more inquisitive than to be fooled by banner headlines, and are very likely to vote for change just because we are being told not to. The groundswell of support for a yes vote is growing because we have already reached the acceptance stage of change being inevitable, and the public always want to be part of a winning team, whereas the same tired old fear and smear tactics from the no campaign are wearing a bit thin, and they really have nothing new to offer, just more of the same old corrupt ,Westminster nonsense none of us voted for.

    17. muttley79 says:

      @Kenny Campbell
      Denial of DEVO+ option was always the worst thing unionists could have done…..After centuries of Divide and Conquer they forgot that tactic at the critical moment due mostly to their blind rage at the SNP….
      Salmond played a blinder on the second question.  Offered it to the Unionists after the 2011 election, knowing that they would reject it in an aggressive and knee jerk way, as the offer came from him.  He did not need to do anything after that.  The Unionists publicly rejected it, leaving the supporters of Devo Max effectively with the option they support.  The MSM would back the Unionists because they have the same views on the constitution as them.  Whether it was even possible is debatable.  However, once they had rushed to reject it the Yes campaign could concentrate on trying to win over Devo Max supporters.  This will reach a climax with the publication of the White Paper in a few months, where independence will be as close as possible to Devo Max as possible. 
      The strategic failure of the No campaign is evident in Darling’s increasingly whiny remarks about how the SG’s version of independence is not really independence!  You don’t get to define independence Alastair, as you and the rest of BT are against it!!   

    18. scottish_skier says:

      Excellent article. Your curve looks remarkably like the polling data. I’ve talked about something similar in trying to explain polling data.
      We’ve had one such curve and now we’re on the second one.
      The first one centred on 2010.
      SNP were polling consistently 40% and up to 45% in 2009. But then Labour began collapsing in UKGE polls as their bubble burst. The Tories could be coming back…
      In response at this ‘shock’, around 10-15% of the electorate who had been moving slowly towards the SNP under New Labour reverted to type in a panic. They put aside any thoughts on voting SNP and did what they have always done to try and stop the Tories; they went out and voted Labour in 2010 in large numbers. It wasn’t enough. It failed.
      In continued panic, when pollsters asked them what they’d vote in the 2011 Scottish election they said Labour again, even though deep down inside they liked what the SNP were saying and no longer supported the failed New Labour project / party they once knew. At this point, even with the anti-SNP attacks in full swing, they started to put aside their doubts and accept that voting Labour was no longer a sensible option. They assessed the situation, examined what it was they really wanted, considered whether it was really such a scary prospect (SNP leading to a possible referendum) and decided to go with the SNP en masse.
      The SNP won. A referendum was to be held. Elation followed. Polls showed Yes go ahead of No. Then project fear went ahead at full throttle.
      The second period of fear and resistance began. Independence is a big step. Many started to get cold feet. Every day people are attacked for supporting independence. The media is full of stories about how disastrous it would be. People are told how horrible they are to want to break up Britain. They must be anti-English. They’re on the fringes. Nobody wants independence.  
      What happens? The polls show No taking the lead and Yes falling away over 2012. All of them. Well, actually while they all show the same trends, the non-anonymous ones show the biggest No gains and the largest Yes falls. The online ones are far more muted with the No gaining only a little and the Yes losing not much. That’s because while a section of the electorate did get cold feet, much of the deviation is down to people not saying what they really feel. The shy Yes voter.
      Dig into the polls and it’s all there. Only 55% of SNP voters support independence if asked straight to their face on their doorstep, yet ask them anonymously online and it’s ~80%. Telephone them and it’s ~60%… Same phenomenon applies to voters of other parties too.
      Now we are entering the acceptance and examination phase of our second curve.
      The No is slowly falling away and the Yes rising. The SNP vote for both Holyrood and Westminster, after reducing modestly over the 2012-early 2013 period is on the way back up (note this only showed a very modest fall compared to Y/N polls as voting SNP is ‘normal’ now – that was dealt with in the first curve). And once those people who have flirted with Yes in the past commit, then we are on our way to independence.
      The electorate has accepted that there is to be a referendum and they will need to make a final decision. They are now examining what they will do. We’re about half way between the two on the plot.

    19. Bobby McKail says:

      Great article Scott! I learned the 5 stages of grief when I did my course on Social care for elderly. 🙂

    20. balgayboy says:

      Quick the suns oot says:@12.54.
      Agree, terrible behaviour and I hope the gentleman recovers from this. I trust he was not standing outside Greggs Bakery who had run out out of sausage rolls and JB was in town! just a thought. 

    21. john king says:

      just read a letter to the local paper that was the ubiquitous twtpts argument that they (because they have nothing else) are still trotting out, 
      I couldn’t help my self so I sent a response
      Ephemeral :adj, lasting for a very short time, 
      Shibboleth : noun, A custom , principle or  belief, distinguishing a class or group of people
      Interesting choice of words Andy as it would seem from your use of them that the feeling is the desire for self determination, is peculiar to the SNP and noone else?
       “to date the supporters of (separation)”
      leading word there Andy, one that the parliament was forbidden to use as it is misleading and implies something the yes campaign does not and never has espoused,
      independence to manage and control our own expenditure  welfare  and defence policies 
      does not (no matter what serial flipper Alistair Darling would like us to believe) turn us into foreigners and debar us from using the English language,
      you own phrase
       “British and International trades unions all understand the maxim united we stand divided we fall”
      asks then how is there such a thing as “international ” trades unions without other countries to stand together with? 
      what a bizarre comment,
      “the invisible hand of proxy vote”?
      sounds like projection to me Andy
       Falkirk anyone?
      so to sum up the desire for Independence is “ephemeral”
       anyone aware of the quote 

      For as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
      From The Declaration of Arbroath 1320.
      seems to me the desire for independence in Scotland has existed for several more centuries than the Labour party Andy,

      well we seem to be a group of people who seek self determination,alone, apart from the other lot hmm lets see
      Antigua and Barbuda 
      Basutoland – see Lesotho 
      Bechuanaland – see Botswana 
      British Antarctic Territory 
      British Central Africa 
      British East Africa 
      British Guiana – see Guyana 
      British Honduras – see Belize 
      British Indian Ocean Territory
      British New Guinea (Papua) 
      British Somaliland 
      British South Africa Company 
      Burma – see Myanmar 
      Cape Colony – South Africa 
      Ceylon – see Sri Lanka 
      Cook Islands
      East India Company 
      Federated Malay States
      Gilbert and Ellice Islands
      Gold Coast – see also Ghana
      Ionian Islands 
      Hong Kong 
      Lagos (Nigeria) 
      Leeward Islands 
      Liu Kung Tau – see China 
      Malaya – see Malaysia 
      Mosquito Coast, Nicaragua 
      Nauru – see Western Pacific High Commission
      New Hebrides
      New South Wales
      New Zealand 
      Niger Coast Protectorate – see British Nigeria
      Niue – see Western Pacific High Commission
      North Borneo (Sabah)
      Northern Nigeria – see British Nigeria
      Northern Rhodesia
      Orange River Colony 
      Royal Niger Company
      Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland 
      Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla 
      Saint Kitts and Nevis 
      Saint Lucia 
      Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 
      Sierra Leone 
      Solomon Islands 
      South Africa 
      South Australia
      Southern Nigeria – see British Nigeria
      Southern Rhodesia
      Straits Settlements 
      Trinidad and Tobago 
      Turks and Caicos Islands 
      Unfederated Malay States – see Historical Flags in Malaysia
      Weiheiwei, China 
      West African Settlements
      West Indies Federation 
      West Pacific High Commissioner 
      Western Australia
      Western Samoa – see Samoa
      Windward Islands
      Witu Protectorate
      I hope this is helpful.
      see any countries there Andy who are clamouring to return to the warm embrace of Westminster?
      sorry I really cant be bothered to type the letter in (lifes too short) but beleive me it was full of the usual crap


    22. Rusty Shackleford says:

      Powerful reason to get those car stickers in place.
      I was sent one, but given I’m in NI I can’t really affix it to my car unfortunately! It’s people doing this in Scotland that matters though, as you said Ian, the more people stick Yes Scotland stuff on cars, windows, etc, the more normalised it becomes and chips away at the fear and propaganda.

    23. Angus McPhee says:

      “as without them the public would not have been exposed to the stream of reasoned and logical rebuttals put forward by Yes campaigners, mainly in online media. Only by confronting and debunking each fear can the equilibrium be moved.”

      And this is somthing that BT is only too well aware of.  It provides the logical basis for their stringent online censoring policy.

    24. john king says:

      your right rusty Im off to get one now

    25. ` says:

      A very interesting article. The no campaign have no positive message for staying with the Union. I just watched FMQ, another three point attack on the SNP and Alex Salmond in particular, sometimes he has more patience than he should have.

      Personal attacks abound,pretty much where Holyrood left it at the end of last session.

      However A.Salmond handled it all without a problem. There has to be a time when the naysayers doubt what their ” Politicians” are actually saying, and listen to the rebuttals that are put reasonably by the FM.

      A voice of reason in a maddening crowd. To put the positive for Independence was always a risk as to how the Unionists may react to  it, and what positive case they may put for the Union.

      Now we are well down the road, people are becoming more and more unsure of the Unionist cause. Simply put,they do not have a positive case that cannot be bettered by the YES community.

      Their “Project Fear” now that it is in the open, makes a fool of Scots and is a disgrace to democracy, in Scotland there is none.
      However, fear can backfire and I am sure it is now happening. A similar situation was in place in the last Quebec referendum, the result was that people heard so much of it, that they just took no notice.

      They were beat by 1% in the end, but it was not fear that lost them a win, it was the fact that they had a narrow view of their potential voters and did not include the possible voters of all other parties who may have backed Independence.

      Big mistake, as they may have pulled enough of these voters to win by a margin.

      This is something which was not missed by the SNP, who now have yes voters across all parties and social groups, this will make a huge difference, and while the Unionist now realize this, they cannot motivate the people on the ground,unlike the YES campaign.

      If you take in the concept of convincing one other person, by all people who believe in YES, then,  when taking in the above, it becomes a self perpetuating situation which makes a YES vote, ever more likely.

      We are hugely disadvantaged by the MSM particularly the BBC, however we are compensating in some way by online activists and pro Yes websites,such as this one, and we need to keep growing.

      Work always needs done, but stick to our guns and our positive vision for Scotland will, I am convinced, overcome the odds and lead to another and our biggest upset yet. So let us all put effort in,and we can look forward to a New and Better Land.

    26. scottish_skier says:

       In simpler terms (from my last comment):
      Curve 1
      SHOCK = Labour / bubble collapse, 2010 UKGE prospects and aftermath
      Resistance = 2010 to early 2011
      Acceptance = early 2011
      Examination = spring 2011
      Commitment = May 2011
      Curve 2
      SHOCK = There will be a referendum (early 2012) and Scotland may become independent finally
      Resistance = 2012
      Acceptance = late 2012 – early 2013 (date set, Edinburgh agreement = trough of acceptance rough No peak)
      Examination = began spring 2013
      Commitment = due spring / summer 2014

    27. HandandShrimp says:

      LOL Mind you there was a warmer on the BBC story the other day called BrawBilly or something absolutely convinced that the SNP votes came from all the Tims. He was a warmer but it is a sentiment I have seen before.  

    28. muttley79 says:

      You should write an article for WoS (providing you have the time).

    29. Keith Brodie says:

      @ Rev. Stu
      O/T re Paypal
      You might want to have a gander at this.

    30. Ayes On The Prize says:

      I am a Scot of Irish descent, and I am a Celtic fan, it brings me  to despair to hear some  fellow fans opposed to Independence on the basis that this will lead to some sort of Protestant super state.
      Good grief !
      Of all the nonsense bandied about the status quo this one takes the breath away.
      I argue of course that any anti Irish racism or religious bigotry in today’s Scotland  is in part the  product of the 300 year old unionist society we are trying to end. I also poi nt out that is the Scottish Government which acted to curb violence in football stadia after an assault on the Celtic manager.

    31. Angus McPhee says:

      adding on to scottish skiers comments on the rise of a yes intention and the subsiquent backing off as the “your a bad person if you vote yes, you must be anti english etc.” argument kicks in.

      given a bit of time for reflection , i see the thought process goes thus

      “Well I was toying with the idea of voting yes but I don’t really want to associate with the anti- english/braveheart idea, i must be a no supporter….. pause…. wait a mo, that’s me they are talking about, I’m not anti-English and i’ve never seen Braveheart. Ching! light bulb moment!”

    32. cearc says:

      john king,
      Great list but I didn’t spot the great US of A, who don’t seem to be doing ok without the ‘big clout’ of Westminster .                                                                     

    33. Indy_Scot says:

      As someone much wiser than me once said,
      “One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it”

    34. The Man in the Jar says:

      “Group norms are vital to overcome if you wish to effect change”
      There is the reason to get on the hill on Sept 21st!
      PS Congratulations Scott both on the article and your forthcoming marriage.

    35. creigs1707repeal says:

      Fear truly is their only ‘weapon’. Terrorise the people of Scotland into voting against full self-autonomy. Alas, the people of Scotland don’t take too kindly to those who bring terror to our doorstep. As John Smeaton famously said, “Don’t bring your terror here … we’ll set aboot yae!”

      And the people of Scotland WILL “set aboot” these Project Fear terrorists – by stuffing the ballot boxes full of YES votes. The people of Scotland will NOT be terrorised out of voting for our rightful place in the community of nations. And we will trust ourselves to deliver a better, more socially just future for Scotland than anything Westminster could ever deliver for us. Westminster has only ensured that Glasgow has become the jobless capital of Britain. Better Together? Get real!
      YES Scotland.

    36. muttley79 says:

      I see Lamont at FMQs today accused a senior civil servant of effectively protecting the SG.  I wonder if the MSM, particularly BBC Scotland will report this serious allegation?…

    37. Kenny Campbell says:

      “” If this was 1920 and you were in Dublin what flag would you be flying? The Union Jack or the Tricolour?”
      They can’t answer that question honestly”
      Never mind 1920’s what flag are they draped in today at their season ticket seats at Parkhead….

    38. ianbrotherhood says:

      @Quick the sun’s oot (12.54)-
      I read a report of that same incident in today’s Herald, including the same quote from the Police – it made no mention of the victim being a Yes supporter.

    39. Another London Dividend says:

      I wonder whether the “national” newspapers and state broadcaster will give any airing to this unprovoked attack on an elderly YES campaigner in EDinburgh.
      First it was Project Fear then Project smear following by Project Hack now Project Attack.
      Remember all the outrage at people tearing down Union Jacks in the “popular press”

    40. gordoz says:

      David McEwan Hill says:
      5 September, 2013 at 12:55 pm

      These anti Scots of Irish descent should be exposed
      Kelly, Murphy, McMahon spring to mind but there are dozens of them.Im sure Celts fans for Independence give them pelters regularly !!
      “Your name is coming up on previous thread regarding ‘imposter quotes’ on another site ?

    41. Colin Cameron says:

      “This can also be called the “shyness factor”, where a person is unwilling to go against the group for fear of being criticised.”
      Yup – last time I was involved in an independence debate in a group I was at my church house group. I basically ended up with half a dozen guys (40-60, wealthy middle class, right-wing-ish) rubbishing everything I (as the only openly pro-independence voice in the room) said. Later, as one couple left, the wife of one of the guys arguing earlier whispered to me “I’m with you”. Then, on a one-on one conversation with someone else who stayed quiet, he professed to being undecided but very sympathetic to Yes and rather clued up on the two sides’ social media campaigns.
      I decided after that that it’s best to keep my mouth shut unless I’m having a one-on-one conversation and the topic comes up.

    42. Doug Daniel says:

      Great article, Scott. This is exactly why unionists don’t want the referendum campaign to last so long, because they know fear has diminishing returns, and people see through it eventually.
      Yes has two big things on our side: time and truth. If you have these two things on your side, you can’t lose.

    43. HandandShrimp says:

      I see Lamont at FMQs today accused a senior civil servant of effectively protecting the SG
      Osborne has the Treasury producing anti-independence documents has Lamont said a dickie bird about that? Of course not, she would sooner quote from them than criticise.

    44. Bill McLean says:

      Gordoz – no one is saying that the David McEwan Hill on this thread is an “imposter”. There is another of that name who wrote to today’s Express expressing very anti SNP and Independence referendum feelings. Now we have Dave McEwan Hill (YES campaigner), David McEwan Hill on this thread and the anti David McEwan Hill. What’s happening – this is as difficult as following skier’s explanations of how weighting in polls works!

    45. HandandShrimp says:

      Another plus about the date is that with only a few months to UK General Election it is going to be hard for Labour and the Tories to keep playing nice and if Ed continues to steer for the financial and electoral rocks the thought of a largely Tory/UKIP Westminster will prove scarier than anything Project Fear could dream of in their worst nightmares.

    46. jake says:

      Too wee, too stupid, too poor, too feart, too indecisive.

    47. MajorBloodnok says:

      jake says: Too wee, too stupid, too poor, too feart, too indecisive.
      That’s JoLo in a nutshell.  Apart from the first one.

    48. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I read a report of that same incident in today’s Herald, including the same quote from the Police – it made no mention of the victim being a Yes supporter.”

      Dammit, people, LINKS!

    49. gordoz says:

      O/T – But thought this was interesting
      Scottish farmland market shrugs off independence uncertainty
      (figures from July 2013)

      Given that it is quite usual for property markets to tread water in the run up to a General Election, one might have assumed that the same would have happened in Scotland, given the huge significance of a potential break from the United Kingdom.

      Doesn’t appear to be the case. Far from stagnating, the average value of farmland in Scotland rose 4% in the first half of 2013 to almost £4,000/acre.

      Prices have now risen by 8% over the past 12 months and 204% over the past 10 years.

      The much aired Westminster speculation over independence is proving to be somewhat of a “red herring”.

      “Whether Scotland is part of the United Kingdom or not, farmers will still benefit from the Common Agricultural Policy, so are we really to believe that the independence issue will weigh too heavily on the farmers ?”

      Info from this website :- V/ good article

    50. gordoz says:

      Bill McLean says:
      Seems like some UK loyalist is at with DMH’s online identity ??

    51. wee 162 says:

      A very important bit on here in my opinion;

      “Because the briefest glance at those driving the campaign shows a group of people with a very great deal to lose personally – mostly those currently occupying Scottish seats at Westminster”

      And I’d also point out that the ranks of Scottish Labour MP’s currently down in the House Of Commons are considered their better politicians. If they lose their jobs due to us becoming independent, they are either going to move to England to a safe seat (unlikely for the most part imo) going to jack in politics (might be a couple, but won’t be many since for most of them this is their career rather than their calling) or attempt to get elected to the Scottish Parliament. That they’re better politicians than Labour are trotting out in Holyrood would mean that a substantial number of their MSP’s are going to be out on their ear as well. And all this is without considering the potential complete re-sculpting of the Scottish political landscape post independence…
      The question I’ve got is how many votes would current Labour policies be getting if they were not considered by most Scots as at least a bulwark against Tory government? I don’t think very many.
      If these things are correct then you have what is looking like a perfect storm of horrendous stuff for the Labour Party in Scotland and their elected politicians. You’ve got your career path massively narrowed by only having one parliament to be elected to (for the meantime, there would probably have to be a second chamber). The main reason people have for voting for you disappears (stop the tories is not going to be particularly relevant in Scotland at any point in the near future if we’re independent). And your party has been committed to a programme which you can be hung with even if you change your policies.

    52. Grant_M says:

      “I read a report of that same incident in today’s Herald, including the same quote from the Police – it made no mention of the victim being a Yes supporter.”

      Dammit, people, LINKS!

    53. dee says:

      Listening to GMS this morning and they were back to their usual bullshit best when they were “warning” of bad thing that would happen if we vote Yes for independence, this time from the CBI. They just cant help slipping into “Project Fear” mode. The producers at BBC Scotland really do take us for utter idiots. They really think we don’t know the game they are playing.  Roll on Edinburgh 21st Sept 2013.

    54. Bill McLean says:

      Gordoz – I’m not sure but it is amazing that there are 3 people with the identical name.
      We have our own Dave McEwan Hill – Yes campaigner from Sandbanks,
      David McEwan Hill, in the Express today attacking independence referendum and the SNP – in the paper as from Sandbank. (Seems genuine enough – has an art shop/café near Dunoon)
      Now we have the latest David McEwan Hill on this thread rightly attacking the hypocrisy of some Scots of Irish descent ( I am one myself). Wonder where he lives?
      This could be “Project Fear” morphing into “Project Confusion”!

    55. HandandShrimp says:

      For CBI read arch Unionist McMillan. Do the various pro-Union bodies take turns at feeding Project Fear because it always seems so damned one at a time drip, drip, drip. The BBC cream themselves in the rush to run the latest scare too and getting them to run with a positive headline from the Yes campaign is nigh impossible. They must know that this is obvious and getting more obvious by the day. There will come a point when the official media of the old East Germany had more credibility than the BBC in Scotland.

    56. Luigi says:

      The front page of Edinburgh evening news paper edition this lunchtime
      fear gets physical, absolutely shocking.
      Can you imagine if that elderly gentleman had been a unionist, campaigning for BT? It would have been plastered all over the front pages before the chap hit the deck, and the main topic of discussion on Call Kaye the following morning.

    57. The Man in the Jar says:

      Go-on yersell Doug, on the Herald!

    58. Albalha says:

      Regards the reports on the Royal Mile attack what the Herald reports was what the Scotsman had first reported, clearly from the first wire copy issued, the Evening Times has now printed the updated wire/police story. See link below for the first report.
      Don’t think the Herald were deliberately not reporting the full story, they didn’t have it.
      And how counter intutive is that a 40 something woman attacks an 80 year old man, as being the so called first attack.

    59. David McEwan Hill says:

      Immediately I heard this story and got a description of the assailant I thought of   ……….

    60. Andrew Morton says:

      . . . Someone called Jackie?

    61. Andrew Morton says:

      Interestingly, the Herald has removed a comment criticising them for not updating the story with correct facts and the mods have refused to publish a neutral comment from me adding the facts re him being a Yes campaigner.

    62. Andrew Morton says:

      Can I suggest that we carpet bomb them?

    63. muttley79 says:

      Police Scotland have released a official statement saying that that the alleged perpetrator of the assault on a pro independence campaigner in Edinburgh is not Jackie Baillie, SLAB MSP, despite erroneous reports to the contrary.  Although the accused is described as somewhat overweight, and in her forties, we do not have reason to believe it was ‘Space hopper’ Baillie, as she was seen writing her usual lies for a press statement at SLAB’s HQ in Glasgow, at the time of the incident.

    64. Andrew Morton says:

      I see that one ‘commenter’ on the Evening news story is now claiming that the assailant waited with the man until the ambulance came and that he had previously assaulted someone else. The mind boggles at the motive.

    65. Albalha says:

      As you’ve said yourself in t’other threads, ‘nothing to see here’, ca, canny.

    66. muttley79 says:

      It was meant as a joke though…

    67. Albalha says:

      And in context so my Durrant comment.

    68. muttley79 says:

      If Rev Stu does not like the comment then he is free to delete it.  It was meant in jest though.

    69. Albalha says:

      You’ve lost me now.

    70. Inbhir Anainn says:

      Has to be said wishing Mr James McMillan octogenarian a full and speedy recovery.

    71. muttley79 says:

      What part?  That Rev Stu can delete a comment if he does not think it is appropriate, or liable to cause offense? or that it was meant as a joke (which it was)?

    72. Albalha says:

      For goodness sake it’s not about deletion, that thankfully it’s not what this site is about.
      Unless you’re saying if it’s okay by Rev Stuart Campbell then sod you, come on surely we’re more grown up than that.
      In an ongoing police investigation I’m rather mindful of being wound up, that’s my point.

    73. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      Sorry, what are we discussing here?

    74. muttley79 says:

      It was meant as a spoof, a joke.  Nothing more nothing less.  I am not sure what the problem is.  I have said that if Rev Stu thinks it is offensive then he can delete it (as it is his blog, and he has the right to do that).  All I can say from my perspective is it was not meant to cause offense, that was not the intention behind it.

      @Rev Stu

      I made a joke about Jackie Baillie. Albalha does not like it.  

    75. It is clearly evident that there are those in Scotland who have already made up their minds to vote No regardless of any debate or campaign. Equally, there are a similar group who are determined to vote Yes in 2014 no matter what. The fact that the ‘Opinion Polls’ suggest the No voters are a larger group than the Yes voters might explain the apparent arrogance and confidence of some in the No Campaign but there is a third group that either side of the debate would do well to heed and ignore at their peril. That third group is the ‘Undecided’.  If the undecided voter can be persuaded to vote in one particular fashion then it could definitely turn the whole campaign on its head and a lead in the polls could be wiped out in an instance.

      There is no doubt that the deliberate ‘Project Fear’ has had an effect on potential voters when we look at some of the reasons people give for why they will be voting NO. Their reason or justifications can be directly attributed to the ‘Scaremongering Campaign’ of the Unionists through a blatantly bias State Sponsored BBC and a Tory Tabloid Media. The Negativity and Fear Mongering has been relentless in the last year and there is no doubt it has had an effect in persuading a large proportion of the electorate away from independence and towards staying in the ‘Union’. However, there is one serious issue that the Unionist No Campaigners have not addressed and that is the overwhelming desire of the Scottish electorate to have more devolved powers for the Scottish Parliament.

      The same opinion polls that have the No Campaign in front have consistently shown a desire for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Those increased powers have been referred to as ‘Devo Max’ but the problem the No Campaign has is that it demanded that option be removed from the ballot paper. Therefore it is up to the No Campaign to clearly explain what more powers for a Scottish Parliament within a United Kingdom context would look like.

      The Pro-Independence Yes Campaigners have constantly described their vision of an independent Scotland and what a Yes vote would mean to the population. This is irrefutable even if those opposed to independence might find issue with that vision there is no doubt the vision has been explained. Yet one year after the No Campaign began there is still no indication whatsoever about what extra powers will be put in place after a No vote, if at all. Indeed the three main Scottish Unionist Parties cannot agree with each other or within their own political movements about what more powers means to them or to the Scottish Parliament.

      The Scottish Labour Leader recently announced plans to discuss more Tax Raising Powers and was immediately told by her bosses in London to ‘Drop It’. The Unionists have an undeniable lead in the opinion polls and have done from the beginning but they have failed to make any significant inroads with the large undecided voters. It can be argued that the Yes Campaigners have also failed to make any real impact on that group but things are about to change. The pressure will be on both camps to change the minds of those yet uncommitted but it will be that much harder for those who have embraced Negativity and Fear as a central theme of their campaign and who have, as yet, offered nothing more than ‘More of the Same’.

      The majority of voters may have indicated that they are not yet convinced about the merits of independence but the majority of voters have also indicated that the Status Quo is not an option that sits well. If the No Campaign has failed to persuade the undecided voter through use of Project Fear then they are unlikely to persuade them by even more Fear Mongering. It was once said that if two Negative Campaigns collide then it is the Most Negative Campaign that will prove victorious but if a Negative Campaign and a Positive Campaign collide then it will be the Positive Campaign that will prove victorious.

      The Pro-Independence Movement has repeatedly campaigned in a ‘Positive’ manner against the ‘Negative’ Anti-Independence assertion that Scotland is ‘Too Small’ and ‘Too Poor’ to become independent. As much as the Yes Campaign has successfully succeeded in refuting the Negative No Campaign ‘Too Small’ and ‘Too Poor’ argument it is only the Scottish electorate that can tell the Negative No Campaign that we are not ‘Too Scared’. 

      In 1979 the people of Scotland were offered the chance of Devolution but were denied the chance despite the fact that 51.6% of those who voted actually voted Yes.  The vote was rigged at the eleventh hour and that combined with a bias media fully in control of what was seen on the TV or read in the newspapers compounded the sense of betrayal and deceit.  This time around the Media are still bias and still ruthlessly censoring what is seen on our TV screens and read in our newspapers but there is one major difference. This time around the Yes campaign have the awesome asset of ‘Social Networking’  which is arguably viewed more than all the bias media combined. 

      In this ‘Cyber’ domain the Unionists and their corrupt Unionist Media are not in control and their Negative Project Fear is analysed and disputed in an instance.  Aided and abetted by Google users can check and double check spurious claims of doom and gloom and access factual information at the click of their mouse.  It is this facility that has rendered Project Fear futile and insured that the Pro-Independence Campaigners are winning the debate hands down. 

      They are not winning with counter fear or counter negativity but by challenging the negativity of the Anti-Independence Campaigners and presenting a ‘Positive’ case for independence such as ridding ourselves of pointless and expensive weapons of mass destruction and assuming control of all our assets and resources. 

      The most positive of all though, is the realisation that we can make all the key decisions about our own future without permission or interference from those we did not elect in Westminster.

    76. Albalha says:

      Whatever, honestly. I give in, it started rather too many posts above.


    77. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Bill Mclean
      Very confused. Where did I attack the independence referendum and the SNP?
      The only letter I have had in the Express recently is below. I don’t get the Express but occasionally read others’ copies. Can you copy me anything else you have seen or withdraw your statement. And i don’t have a cafe but I man the YES shop in Dunoonwith other enthusiasts

      “According to Alistair Darling an independent Scotland will be a “minnow” on the world stage.  I assume he means like Denmark, Finland, Norway, New Zealand and dozens of other countries around the same size or smaller that Scotland. Well to be a minnow like any of them would be a big step forward as a the moment Scotland doesn’t exist at all on the world stage and , of course, minnows don’t attack and invade other countries and don’t have nuclear weapons stored a few miles from their biggest cities. ”  

    78. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Just got a copy of the Express. There is indeed a letter in it today attacking the Scottish Government etc in my name. Nothing to do with me and I will insist on a correrction

    79. And, right on cue Jack Foster of Top Ten Unionist Myths Debunked fame has brought out part 1 of a 6 part series called The Fear Factor. Break out the popcorn, enjoy and share it.

    80. Braco says:

      Thanks Sneekyboy,
      another brilliant article. It’s all starting to make sense now……..

    81. Caledonalistic says:

      You’re a real asset to this site, Scott, and to the debate in general.  Very enlightening.

    82. HandandShrimp says:

      What is the issue with the chap attacked on the Royal Mile. The original link is still there with a picture of him with broken wrist and his Saltire (and some well dodgy comments from some absolute shockers I don’t think I have ever looked at the Evening News’ comments before – worse than the Scotsman.)
      The other links are much shorter pieces and seem to suggest he was attacked for gospel singing. Given he is quoted in the longer Evening News piece surely that is more detailed story? Or are we talking about two separate incidents and the woman just hates singing men?

    83. Andrew Morton says:

      Just checked the Herald website again. Under the assault story it says “No one has commented”.
      Not true.

    84. Albalha says:

      The shorter reports, I’m guessing, were the original wire copy via the police reports, then later they gave more detail. As to who will cover it more in full other than the Evening News let’s see.
      And if, and when, there’s an arrest then reporting rules change again.
      Then of course there’s the fact, I’m led to believe, the twittering Journo types are not much interested.

    85. HandandShrimp says:

      Well it doesn’t play to their favoured audience and they do love to please their masters.

    86. Helpmaboab says:

      ianbrotherhood and Rusty Shackleford argue powerfully for the display of “Yes” car stickers.
      I agree. I’ve been displaying one in my rear window since last Autumn during my travels around the central belt. (including a regular commute across the Forth.)
      I’ve experienced no animosity or vandalism. Quite the contrary: After leaving my car parked for a while I’ve often returned to find another “Yes” sticker displayed in the neighbouring bay as if in solidarity. Those stickers seem to be the “Yes” equivalent of a secret handshake.
      I should add that I live in an area which has always been old-fashioned unionist Labour. My neighbours haven’t complained yet.
      However I agree that the new blue-and-white design is a great improvement on the original white one.

    87. scottish_skier says:

      Here we go.
      First shock is of course the financial crisis and the downfall of Labour. This leads to resistance and reversion to norm (vote Labour to stop the Tories). This fails and acceptance (of the new status quo with the Tories at the helm and austerity) follows.
      Then comes examination and commitment, leading to the SNP landslide.
      Then we see a little drop again following the new shock: There will be a referendum on independence. That’s when the cycle starts again. Acceptance comes with the Edinburgh Agreement and setting of the date. Examination follows.
      The drop due to the referendum shock is more pronounced as it is the bigger threat to the status quo; you only see it a little in VI. That’s because the SNP now have commitment / it is normal to vote for them / they are the status quo now.
      I’ll follow up with Y/N polling where we see the same cycles.

    88. Bill McLean says:

      Dave McEwan Hill – see post at 1039 on “Rogues Bloopers”. I have read your letters and posts over the years and was thrown when my wife read the letter out of the Express (which I will not read) from “DAVID MCEWAN HILL, SANDBANKS”. It transpires, and with Albalha’s research there is a DAVID MCEWAN HILL who has an art shop/café at Blairmore whom I suspect was the author of the letter – never you! Amazingly, later in the day another DAVID MCEWAN HILL appeared in this, and Rogues Bloopers post, who appears to be pro independence. What a day this has been. Good luck with your efforts in Dunoon a place we visit from time to time as I have a chum on Lochgoil.

    89. Shinty says:

      Here we go.
      Thanks SS – Doesn’t look good for Labour or Lib Dems!

    90. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Cheers, Bill
      I have contacted the Express who are investigating. The lovely art shop and cafe at Blairmore is not mine  ( proprietors Steve and Sylvia Boyce )though I display paintings there and they sell my prints 

    91. Albalha says:

      @BillMclean and @DaveMcewanHill
      As Bill says all rather confusing, Dave are you an artist, who goes by the name of David McEwan Hill, if so, and you know of no other, then there we are, name in vain, but as Bill says, if not it is indeed a Dave/David odd coincidence.
      With a surname like mine, Balharry, rarely any confusion, of which one is pontificating, I’d have thought the same with McEwan Hill.

    92. Bill McLean says:

      The DAVID McEwan Hill who had an artshop/café at Blairmore says on Google …”I have forthright views on Scottish politics. Now I am retired…..”. I imagine the letter to the Express was from him! Next question – who is the other DAVID McEwan Hill who appeared in this post today at 1255? His sentiments and those of artshop Hill do not chime – very confused. Anyway good luck to all in our noble cause!

    93. HandandShrimp says:

      Could be some Unionist going a tad spare because his letter has the wrong name against it. Express is not above the odd mistake or three.

    94. Bill McLean says:

      Dave. Finally got my head round this. You are the DAVID McEwan Hill who displayed at the art shop in Blairmore but live in Sandbank. The guy who wrote the letter used exactly the same name and place of residence. Will you stick to Dave for ever more please …… Still who is the other DAVID? Hand and Shrimp – if you are in the Kingdom ….. HELP!!!

    95. ianbrotherhood says:

      re: mistaken identity etc, this is one of the all-time greats – Guy Goma, mistaken for a magazine editor, and carrying it off, live on BBC News 24, with admirable aplomb. This is what someone who isn’t a natural liar looks like when put on the spot…

    96. scottish_skier says:

      The drop due to the referendum shock is more pronounced in Y/N polls as it is the bigger threat to the status quo; you only see it a little in VI. That’s because the SNP now have commitment / it is normal to vote for them / they are the status quo now.

    97. Breastplate says:

      This identity theft is not new as the same thing happened to a couple of guys called Spartacus and Brian of Nazareth.

    98. Archie [not Erchie] says:

      @ Albalha – Any relation to Dick Balharry MBE? If so I had a cuppa with him once in a cottage in the Highlands. Showed off his pinemartens.

    99. Christian Wright says:

      That herald story on the octogenarian, pro-independence, placard-carrying, Scots-Canadian crooner who was attacked on the Royal mile, is beyond disgraceful. Figured that prodded by embarrassment and sense of shame, the editor might have seen fit to reveal the context in which the assault to place. Not a chance. 
      Agaian, suppression of news (and a good story) that might possibly show the independence-deniers in a bad light.  Suppression of readers comments that expose the Herald’s duplicity.

      Encapsulates the corruption demonstrated by the entire Fourth Estate when covering political matters Scottish.

    100. Archie [not Erchie] says:

      @ Christian Wright – I totally agree with you and having looked through some other forums and blogs about this I am mortified at the apparent ‘lets sweep it under the carpet’ attitude.
      Comments range from ‘Oh he is a wacky Canadian’, ‘Oh he was singing Gospel songs’, ‘Oh he upset the shoppers’, ‘Oh he was a stupid old man with a Yes placard’
      He had a YES placard?
      Intimidation? Shall I make a list? No I am off to watch Nicola and Anas.

    101. Quick the suns oot says:

      It would be great to see more YES badges out there. I’ve had one on since May and had 1 positive comment and 2 negatives. The best negative was 2 old guys outside the local who saw it and muttered ‘oh fer fuck sake’ and then they both looked at the ground as I walked past. I gave them a huge grin anyway! I now hope to pass them, must be some kind of perverse thing!
      After reading the flag thread I had a wee look at what flags were around on my way to work. I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of saltires. The Balmoral hotel, the High court, Crown Office, Parliament Square, National Library and Edin Uni med school all with saltires. The gallery on the mound, Jenners, BoS all with UJ and saltire. Castle with UJ. The weirdest one tho was the council buildings. They have a big red flag with a small UJ in the corner. First time I’ve seen that one. Aside from big buildings I have never seen a UJ anywhere else. Passed a couple of houses on the train with saltires and an allotment with several saltires. So nice to see!

    102. @archie – I see that the Edinburgh Evening News which DID print the full story, now seems to have revised it al la the Herald, to remove all mention of the context within which the attack took place. In addition, all of the readers comments the story had elicited have also been “disappeared”.

      i kept searching to make sure I hadn’t missed something – apparently not. There is now literally, nothing to see here (“move along now”).

      The Ministry of Truth right enough. The did a great job of excising the whole political element – doubleplusgood!

    103. Andrew Morton says:

      As they printed it in the paper they can’t deny it though!

    104. Albalha says:


    105. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Bill Mclean
      Have a correction printed in today’s Express. They received a letter in my name which they printed in good faith. They are sending me a copy. Interesting. I must have annoyed somebody (I hope) 

    106. Archie [not Erchie] says:

      @ Albalha – 1970-1973 I was in the Kinloss Mountain Rescue Team. Myself and the Team Leader [George Bruce] went to your Uncle’s house prior to climbing/abseiling to check out Peregrine Falcon’s nests and eggs for signs of chemical poisoning or theft.
      I barely remember the house but ‘deer antlers’ for door handles comes to mind. PineMartens in a large run. I think Dick was part of the Ben Eighe Nature Reserve at the time.

    107. MajorBloodnok says:

      @Quick the suns oot
      I wear my badge on the back of my rucksack.  So if you see a guy in Edinburgh on a white bike with a black rucksack with a YES badge on it, commuting sensibly (stopping at red lights, etc.) up and down the Mound and Dundas Street most days, don’t knock me off, that’s me!

    108. Bill McLean says:

      Hi Dave – sorry about delay in replying- it’s shopping day. My better half read the Express’ correction to me. Don’t want to go on about this but will you stick to “Dave McEwan Hill”?
      Too bad you can’t use your own name as you like but someone is at it. Who was the “David McEwan Hill” who appeared in these posts yesterday? Appeared to be sympathetic to our noble cause!

    109. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      The previous one was mine

    110. Quick the suns oot says:

      I’ll see your badge on the back of the bag and raise you one on the shoulder strap at the front too heheh, give us a shout it you whizz by!

    Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box. Include paragraph breaks or I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top