The positive case for the [BLANK]
Posted on
May 17, 2012 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
An unexpected development!
Would anyone like to help them out with some suggestions?
stooges of the Kremlin
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)
-
Recent Posts
- 05-21
- 05-21
- 05-21
- 05-20
- 05-20
- 05-19
- 05-18
- 05-18
- 05-17
- 05-16
- 05-16
- 05-16
- 05-14
- 05-14
- 05-12
- 05-10
- 05-09
- 05-08
- 05-08
- 05-07
Wings Over Scotland
Union news
Wee Books
New friends
I reckon they will go for Yes To Britain (or maybe Yes to the UK) and confuse the hell out of everyone.
Both sides will be on the Yes side and there will be two questions on the ballot paper: 1st question. Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? – only one option to tick of YES; 2nd question. Do you agree that Scotland should remain a part of Britain? – only one option to tick of YES.
That way both sides will win and we can all live happily ever after.
They have a problem because they have to find a positive-sounding name for a campaign which is inherently negative. I’m not about to help them.
How about – “The positve case for North Britain remaining part of England.”
“I reckon they will go for Yes To Britain (or maybe Yes to the UK) and confuse the hell out of everyone.”
I think there’s a genuine possibility of this happening. A slim chance, maybe – ultimately I can’t quite bring myself to believe that they’re THAT stupid – but it could happen. Fingers crossed.
What abut calling it Majority English Rule?
These would fit well with their campaign messages to date
Delete “union” and add
1) “continued generous subsidy from England”
2) “bigger, better, world power”
3) “1000 years of shared history”
4) umm………
I was discussing this in London last week with an ardent tory colleague and the essence of his argument was that centralised countries work better, the bigger the better etc.
So I feigned surprise and said ” you may have a point, yes you may be on to something……why not really go for it and centralise everything and have a United Europe? That would be fabulous”.
He went into meltdown and started babbling about handing control to “foreigners” and how it was totally unacceptable for control to be somehwere “not in this country”.
“ah” I said, “you’re a nationalist too?”
🙂
I think Rolf is probably right. It might sound daft, but it’s the kind of warped thinking they have. Just like the bizarre idea that a referendum question should focus on keeping things the same (“Do you think Scotland should remain in the UK?”) rather than changing things (“Do you think Scotland should be an independent country?”)
“The positive case for making sure we chaps can get a peerage when we’re past our political sell-by date.”
The scary thing is – that people don’t realise that if Scots were to vote “no” – then do they for a naosecond believe that things WOULS remain the same? Like hell they would!
The yestobritain.co.uk and .com domain names are still available to register so they’re either daft or it’s not that.
Seems to me like they are not planning on running a pro union/Britain/uk campaign. They are going to run an anti independence campaign. Seems you can’t teach an old dogs new tricks. Here’s to two years of scare stories and fear mongering. In the end I think people may vote yes just to shut them up!
Keep Englands Empire Constantly Happy.
Say YES to KEECH! 🙂
How about one of these:
1. Say Yes to keeping Scotland an English county!
2. Say Yes to a retaining a North Englandshire Nuclear Weapons Dump!
3. Vote Yes for more exravagant spending in London!
4. If your happy and you know it clap your hands!
Oops, sorry folks I kinda drifted off there for a minute. 😀
Yes to Trident?
The positive case for the continuation of 300 years of exploitation, manipulation, robbery, subjugation, and sneering suppression. Ah yes … “our” shared history!
Perhaps it’ll be TURKEYS: VOTE “YES” TO CHRISTMAS!
I think AS has spiked their guns in that area.
He has already patiently explained the social union and that we will still be part of Great Britain, which is a geographical description and he has started to close the United Kingdom door by saying we would, until a referendum post independence presumably, retain Libby and the monarchy.
These need to be banged home though.
“Yes to Union – as long as it’s not European”?
Empire Loyalists For Westminster.
Loyalists for Westminster and the Orange Order
“… has undertaken public research on what to call the pro-UK campaign”
Does anyone have any idea what this “public research” entailed?
Who are those of the “public” they speak of; online responders (What website?), people on the street, postal responders perhaps? Were they sent out/read out a list of prepared names and then asked which one they preferred? Were responders asked to make up their own title and offer that? How many people took part in the “research” … Questions, questions!
Is there any way that the method of this ‘public research’ and its results could be made, eh… public?
Or, is “public research” just a euphemism for ‘We decided on a name ourselves, actually, and just pretended that we asked members of the public for their opinions because it makes the process look genuine and have more gravitas’?
The positive case for Inertia?
Nattering Nabobs against Nationalism?
Bloviating Windbags for Stagnation?
Belligerent Imbeciles for HeeHaw?
You couldn’t make it up could you? A decision is taken to hide the very thing they are campaigning for because it is seen as too negative. Trouble is, they still have to define and promote their idea, how can you do that if you aren’t willing to admit your pro-union? And come the day of the campaign to launch in earnest, what will we see? A cartoonishly inept displays of belligerent idiocy, wrapped in a UK flag, trawling out images of spitfires, chintz tea cups with the queen on them, Union Jack T-towels, all the strains of Andy Stewart singing “Scottish Soldier”
I suppose when the ideas pantry is a little bare you have little choice but to scrape through the waste-paper bin instead.
@Ally
“The scary thing is – that people don’t realise that if Scots were to vote “no” – then do they for a naosecond believe that things WOULD remain the same? Like hell they would! “
This is the most important and worrying thing for people to realise before they vote. Things will certainly not remain the same. There’s no chance in hell they will even allow for the same events to play out. They will change the rules, put the finger on the scales and make sure that any future attempt will have to go by another path. It would be a far more difficult battle or a completely different battleground next time around. And that doesn’t even start on the obvious other changes that WILL happen in the short and long term with everything else that government can get involved with (law, services, taxes, etc.).
A vote for “No” is still a vote for change and not a vote for it to remain as is forever. The “No” camp are careful not to let too many people realise this as their campaigning hinges on various things of the past or present that are gone or in danger of being dismantled or undone.
I would like to see them use “For a Greater England”, why be alone when you can be part of a Great England. It would save a lot of time and would help our Independence YES. campaign. Yes they should replace “Union” with “Greater England”. I would certainly vote Yes to an Independ Scotland.
the-positive-case-for something pink and fluffy?
I just think its nice that they love us so much that they don’t want us to leave.
“Vote no for something nice (but as yet undefined) which I’m afraid we can’t tell you about until after you vote no”?
A wee thought the no camp uses YES to … Folk on the ballot paper will see YES / NO what if folk instinctly vote YES when they might actual want NO?
How about:
You think we’re contemptuous of the sovereign Scots and their wee Parliament? Whit’s McAlpine’s and Salmond’s excuse?
Or.
Would you put Pinot Grigio before your duty to your country?
Or
What’s independence for when you have Leveson and Westminster to hide behind?
This is an important point people. The Unionists may show contempt for independence, but I don’t think I’ve seen such brazen contempt for parliament as that shown by the Nationalists Joan and Alex.
Ah, the positive case for a negative argument. I think we have already heard the campaign slogan, which is ‘stronger together, weaker apart’. To which my response would be ‘Scots are stronger together, but weaker a part of Westminster’.
The “No to Scotland” parties
How about ‘No To Separatism’ on the basis that a double negative is a postiive? It’s logic Jim, just not as we know it…
They’ve been advised by their lawyers that to use the word “union” might be challenged in the courts on the basis that it’s not a union and never was. It was annexation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146939/Darling-hosts-secret-summit-kill-Scottish-independence-Edinburgh-home.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/darling-says-blair-will-fight-scots-breakaway-7769669.html