The invisible bogeyman
Ever since the SNP's victory in May, Unionist politicians of all flavours have been going on and on about making "the positive case for the Union", a thing which apparently exists but which none of them have as yet been able to actually define. The only specific example of this positive case so far has come from the new Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, who pointed out that being in the Union enabled us to enjoy the performances of the GB team at the Olympics.
(An event which has directly sucked money out of Scotland and down to London, and which mystifyingly enjoys a different tax status to the forthcoming 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, which our sources tell us is in Scotland.)
Over on Better Nation, though, Labour activist Aidan Skinner (one of the few who seems to have any grasp of the scale and nature of the party in Scotland's predicament) has had a stab at it. Apparently the "coherent and convincing" case for the Union is that it enhances Scotland's "shared defence and commercial interests".
Further details are unforthcoming in the piece, however, which raises more questions than it answers. It doesn't explain, for example, how Scotland's interests are served by years of UK government underspending on defence in Scotland (as identified by Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett), the siting in Scotland of nuclear weapons which are overwhelmingly opposed by the Scottish electorate, or UK foreign policy which makes the entire UK at greater risk of terrorist attack. Nor, oddly, is any nation state which poses a military threat to Scotland identified.
Similarly, the single sentence devoted to this "coherent and convincing case" neglects to clarify any specific instances of Westminster control of Scotland's economy bringing commercial benefits. We're sure there are many, though, and look forward to reading them when the No campaign finally gets round to publishing "The Positive Case For The Union" through Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which we're currently expecting some time around 2017.
Because that piece isn't intended as a grand defence of the union. It's about why there isn't a single, coordinated Unionist bloc for the serried ranks of Nationalists to clash with on the field of open battle.
"It's about why there isn't a single, coordinated Unionist bloc for the serried ranks of Nationalists to clash with on the field of open battle."
Given that the field of battle is whether Scotland stays in the Union or not, perhaps you ought to get your ranks into some sort of order, then. Because whether you like it or not, in a single-issue vote if you're against independence then you ARE all on the same side, no matter whether you argue about economics among yourselves or not.
I see currency guy is still backing Torrence, AKA, Judge Dan Francisco. His dad cannot be Frank!!