Vote No, say nothing
Posted on
January 26, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
It’s a real bonus for us when other people dissect something so comprehensively, from a variety of angles, that we don’t have to bother. The solitary piece of what could conceivably be described as solid content in Ruth Davidson’s speech in Edinburgh yesterday appeared to comprise a well-known football chant, which we’ll paraphrase for sensitive readers: “We’re [not of a very high standard], and we know we are”.
Fortunately, we’ve been saved some time in pulling it apart in detail thanks to three excellent and forensic examinations by the unlikely trinity of Lallands Peat Worrier, Alex Massie in the Spectator and – heavens above – Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph. We’re off now to check our temperature and make sure we don’t have a fever.
I can’t decide. Charlie Chaplin, or Norman Wisdom?
If you put the little moustache in, the Chaplin resemblance is quite uncanny. link to twitpic.com
This is completely off-topic (well, not completely), but for some reason, towards the end of LPW’s piece, I got thinking about how beneficial it would be if the media would use the format from your attempted Straight Debates series. It’s amazing how something so simple is so effective at teasing out the truth from the bullshit folk spout. I would love to see such a debate between the two Blairs.
Oh yeah, I know why it came into my head. The media really needs to sit them down and say “look, just give us the answer without any waffling pish – why would English MPs vote to give the Scottish Parliament more power?”
OT – can anyone remember how you check if a media article has changed? I could swear the Guardian article was different when I read it first! I may be paranoid …
“OT – can anyone remember how you check if a media article has changed?”
Google cache, archive.org or NewsSniffer.
Nice one Stu! 🙂
The No parties were adamant about having only a Yes/No question on independence. For any promises of more powers to have any meaning they are all going to have to agree exactly on the powers, then have to ensure it is put in their British parties manifestos for the next general election, which happens to be after the referendum. The likelihood of all that happening is almost 0%. So basically they only want to defeat Salmond and the SNP, and “separation” as they call self-determination. That there has not even been one critical critique of the main No campaign in the media is astonishing, if hardly surprising. Basically it is a dog’s breakfast of a campaign.
A line drawn in the sand and washed away by the incoming tide.
A suitable metaphor for the “scottish” tories.
RIP,
well not really
Fekem
As I said on LPW’s blog just now:
The whole premise of the idea of getting more power for the Scottish Parliament from Westminster is completely flawed. When are journalists going to pick up on this? It’s not just that they refuse to detail WHAT powers they would devolve – they won’t tell us HOW they would get them devolved either.
Devolution is a way of pretending to give the people what they want, while all the time keeping the process completely in the hands of politicians. Any further powers devolved would go the same way – a commission of “experts” would be formed, THEY would decide which powers we can be trusted with, and it would fall a long way short of what the people want. This will always be the case, because the politicians know that once we get what we want, we’ll ask for more, so they must always give us less than we want. This is why the Tories and Tory-minded Labour politicians have always been wary of devolution, because they know it’s put us on the one-way track to independence. Ruth’s attempt to draw a “line in the sand” was futile because she’s drawing it on a surface which is constantly moving forward. You can’t stop destiny.
If the devolution process was put in the hands of the people, we’d already be halfway independent by now, if not completely. The people want welfare and taxation controlled in Holyrood. This would challenge the authority of Westminster, as Holyrood would stop being subordinate to them. It would come to be seen as Scotland’s main parliament, and soon people would question why Westminster controlled foreign affairs and defence, and thus lead to independence. This is why English MPs will never vote to give Scotland anything resembling the level of powers people want it to have, and if we had been given the opportunity to vote for Devo Max, they would have been given the unenviable choice of doing something they didn’t want to do, or having to tell us “no”, and face the public outcry.
If we want politicians to decide when Scotland’s grown up enough to have certain powers, people can vote no. If we want to take the powers we want, then we have to vote yes.
I was thinking, if Scottish Skier’s theory about Cameron is right, he is bound to dismiss the idea of more powers in the event of a No vote outright in the next year or so (perhaps even during the final few weeks of the campaign). It is maybe something to watch out for to see if it happens or not. After his speech on the EU, Cameron would probably need to make just one other untimely intervention, to ensure almost complete distrust engulfs the No camp.
@Doug Daniel
Journalists are not going to pick it up because they do not want to draw attention to it. They will make it all about independence.
Unashamedly plagiarised and modified from Piet Hein
It is the week-end anyway
For the Unionist
Our choicest plans
have fallen through,
our airiest castles
tumbled over,
because of lines
we neatly drew
and later neatly
stumbled over.Our choicest plans
have fallen through,
our airiest castles
tumbled over,
because of lines
we neatly drew
and later neatly
stumbled over.
A MAXIM FOR SCOTS
Here is a fact that should help you fight a bit longer:
Things that don’t actually kill you outright make you stronger.
A REPROOF
In view of your manner
of spending your days
I hope you may learn,
before ending them,
that the effort you spend
on defending your ways
could be better spent on
amending them.
MAKING SENSE
Life makes senses
and who could doubt it,
if we have
no doubt about it.
(on Denmark)
Denmark seen from a foreign land
looks but like a grain of sand.
Denmark as we Danes conceive it
is so big you won’t believe it.
and
Why not let us compromise
about Denmark’s proper size,
which will truly please us all,
since it’s bigger than it’s small.
for Rev Stu tongue in cheek
A TIP
to members of the literary profession
Those who can write
have a lot to learn
from those bright enough
not to.
I stumbled across Piet Hein 40+ years ago in Denmark. His ^profession was that of architect.
Even then he penned mainly in English.
I have rediscovered them, by way of some his Grook books, as I sell up in France and clear my house.
Suddenly his simple philiosophy gives me hope and inspiration for Scotland in this phony war period.
Thanks Rev. That NewsSniffer is a great resource.
Ouch! A Scottish Tory Leader getting the Bronx cheer from Cochrane. That must hurt.
.Dadsarmy. If you find you are paranoid keep your guard up. Remember the old adage ‘just because your paranoid dosen’t mean their not out to get you’.