Wings Over Scotland

Spot on, Stuart!  Love it!

If I were him, I’d be thinking about a deed poll rather than a deid poll. 

Shouldn’t someone in the British Labour Party have a wee word in his ear and gently guide him along to the Doctor?
 
They can’t all be heartless bastards can they?

Thinking about it Albamac I think you’ve got them the wrong way round.
I’m sure your comment SHOULD have read “If I were him, I’d be thinking about a deid poll rather than a deed poll.”:D

Does his mither allow him oot withoot supervision???? 😀

And here was me thinking I was the king of half baked theories.

Wee discussion of the boundary changes here from UK polling report.

link to ukpollingreport.co.uk

Tories remain content they can get them through. As the changes would make it a more even battle (the current boundaries allow labour to e.g. get a majority on 35% of the vote but the Tories need closer to 42%), I support it. As a liberal democratic party, I imagine the SNP would too…

Add in a few other minor parties and Libs + Lab may not be enough to block it. 

From notsosmartypants’ blog:

‘Firstly, that, as my own Party has done before to its cost, I underestimated David Cameron. For he realised that the only possible response to Salmond’s stated desire, and undoubted electoral mandate, for an Independence Referendum was to reply “Bring it on”. If only Gordon Brown had been as decisive in 2007 then Wendy Alexander would probably today be First Minister of Scotland.’

These are the alternative universe fantasies before which SLABers warm their withered haunches.
  

Ian Smart and many other unionists are in a state of denial.

Don’t forget a referendum on Scottish Independence is what the Independence movement  have fought for many years. It’s as if the unionists have awoken from a perceived nightmare , only to realise it’s not-it’s reality. They can’t accept it. To make matters worse for them they’ve just realised The Scottish Parliament will have the final say on the wording of the question, not the EC.

David Cameron looked edgy as hell yesterday. I think he knows what’s coming.      

Take your well-earned plaudits Stuart but it has to be said that only the cognitively-challenged could have failed to have seen this coming, for Ian’s argument was always mad, completely barking mad. He mustn’t give up on this, though and, if he’s looking for a fall-back position to salvage his argument that there isn’t going to be a referendum, he needs an argument that is more credible than his previous argument.
 
What might this be? Well, Ian could now argue that the referendum will be scuppered because, before the section 30 order passes through Westminster, Alex Salmond will be abducted by aliens. After a disappearance of 24 hours, Salmond will be returned to earth by the mothership and will reveal to everyone that he has now been converted to unionism. This will have such a devastating effect on the Yes campaign that the referendum will be called off and at the 2015 British general election, Alex Salmond will become Britain’s new prime minister. Within days of this, Samantha Cameron will sell her story to The Sun that she is having Alex Salmond’s love-child. Salmond will be forced to resign and Gordon Brown will be asked to step in (again) as another caretaker prime minister until the British (again) work out how on earth they’re going to get out of this mess. There you go Ian. 

Not in the least bit surprised – It fits the narrative fallacy he made for himself. Salmond did not want a referendum & would have used camerons intransigence as a way out. However, Cameron was too smart by half and tricked Salmond by giving him everything he wanted. So in this version, he was right but had underestimated Cameron’s ability to force Salmond into doing something he hadn’t wanted.
It’s not just him that suffers from this. The entire “no” campaign has boxed itself in with little wiggle room. 2 years with a circular argument of negativity. 2 years for people to see the coalition at it’s worst. 2 years of ever more surreal brainfarts from Lamont & co. Two years of double bind theory dilemmas for the unionists.

The thing that I don’t understand about Smart is that as a lawyer, he has made his political views widely known through his blog and in the media.  This would not normally be a problem, however, since he has publically aired his ludicrous referendum theory, and which has been subsequently proven to have been fantasy, how can he be taken seriously again?  In addition, who the fuck would want someone like that representing them in legal matters?  Has anyone close to him, politically or personally, had a word about this with him and spoken bluntly about the effects of his ‘political commentary?’

I think what has really wrong-footed the No campaign so absolutely is that AS was perhaps expected to behave as a typical career politician and scupper the referendum, out of self-interest (“that’s what politics is all about after all – Salmond is just another politician like the rest of us”). Well, no, AS and most if not all of his colleagues are operating with a different purpose. Boy are they going for it and boy has this frightened their opponents. They thought they had the measure of the man. Their fatal mistake may have been obvious to us, but I suppose you have to be a bit of a nationalist to understand the depth of conviction that is driving the yes campaign. The unionist politicians and MSM still don’t quite get it and they are starting to feel nervous. I haven’t seen so many glum faces on the BBC during the past two days, since that wonderful morning in May 2011.

Talking of fantasy-land, just noticed this comment on the New Statesman.

The question really is why has Salmond got nearly all he wants? What has he promised to Cameron in private? Remember that in 2015 the SNP, having lost the referendum, could hold the balance of power in the new UK Parliament. If this happens don’t expect a Labour led government to emerge.

It’s a new take I hadn’t seen before, I’ll give him that.

It’s obvious Morag! That’s just what you’d expect Tartan Tories to do, right?

I’ve never understood Ian Smarts point of view.He extolls the delights of Italy (quite rightly ),the culture ,the style, the 5 autonomous regions who get to keep their levied taxes and not a thing Rome can do about it- a wee bit of practice what you preach Ian.

More years ago than I care to count I was Ian Smart’s trainee in Easterhouse. He was fairly Rational back then, a really nice bloke actually, someone I thought would be able to look beyond party to the greater good. Shame how he’s Now mad as a box of frogs