With Scotland’s vote on independence one year away, Blair McDougall finds the nationalist strategy stalled
Next September Scotland will be asked to make a choice. Do we want to remain a strong part of the United Kingdom, or do we want to make a leap into the unknown and go it alone? It is a choice that the people of Scotland will make, but it is a decision that could have a profound impact on everyone who lives on these islands.
Most readers of this article will likely be inside the UK but outside of Scotland and so may not have been following Scotland’s debate as closely as those of us living it every day. So, with a year to go, where do things stand in the independence debate?
The first thing to understand about the referendum is that it is taking place in spite of the level of support for independence, rather than because of it. Alex Salmond has worked hard since he became first minister to try and tell the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland that we here in Scotland are somehow desperate to break away from them. In telling this particular story he is being dishonest. For generations, support for independence has been a minority view. The overwhelming majority of people are entirely comfortable with being a Scot within the UK. Salmond and his party strategists know this. That is exactly why he absolutely refused to talk about the constitution during the last election. He knew that to push independence front and centre in the campaign would have lost, not won, votes.
Indeed, 55 per cent of people who said that they voted for the Scottish National party in 2011 have said that they are in favour of independence. Indeed, since Salmond started his campaign to break up the UK, support for independence has dropped in almost every published opinion poll (apart from one poll that the SNP commissioned and which has since been largely discredited). Recent polls show that support for independence currently stands at just one in four.
But Salmond pushes on undeterred. He is a politician who builds his success by creating an unstoppable sense of momentum. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, his narrative of recent Scottish history is that independence is inevitable, that devolution is a staging post on a journey to the inescapable dissolution of the union.
Therein lies his difficulty today. His belief in leaving the UK is based on faith rather than facts. Like all nationalists he starts with a conviction that Scotland should, and will, be a separate state. The evidence follows afterwards. He describes those leading the opposition to his project as a traitorous ‘parcel of rogues’ whose job is to talk down Scotland. In his mind, when these ‘anti-Scottish’ forces are defeated, national pride and patriotism will awaken and Scots will achieve their true destiny. It is an utterly dishonest and objectionable prospectus. To suggest that people who do not share his faith-based world view are somehow less Scottish than those that do is an insult to the majority of people in Scotland – the very same people that he has to convince to vote for him if he is to have any chance of success.
Most Scots do not feel any less proudly Scottish just because we are part of a union with the other nations within the UK. The great Scottish achievements and triumphs – from the age of enlightenment to our modern innovations – have occurred as part of the UK. They may not have happened because of the union but being part of the UK certainly has not prevented us from being a distinctive and successful nation. In fact, from the preservation of our own religious and legal institutions, to the powerful and successful devolved parliament in place since 1999, Scottishness has always coexisted as part of something bigger.
The nationalists’ strategy is trapped between a need to excite the electorate about the change they claim could occur with independence and a fear that a radical offer will only further alienate a sceptical electorate. The result is an independence offer best described as ‘everything will change but nothing will change.’ Ironically, this attempt to ‘de-risk’ independence has only further alienated voters. Sometimes described as ‘indy-lite’, rebranding a product Scots neither want nor need has left a once-passionate and well-defined cause seeming inauthentic and bloodless.
Take the issue of what currency an independent Scotland would use. A couple of years ago Salmond argued that the pound was bad for Scotland and that early entry into the euro was essential. After the eurozone crisis the SNP switched to a policy of creating a sterlingzone after independence underpinned by a fiscal pact between an independent Scottish government and the government of the remainder of the UK.
Honest nationalists have raised questions over whether such a fiscal pact would make a ‘free’ Scotland truly free, as Edinburgh’s spending and taxes would have to be sent for sign-off in London. And this policy is not something that the SNP could promise: a currency union, by definition, would be something the rest of the UK would have to sign up to. With Scotland having just walked away, would the rest of the UK agree to enter into a currency union with a new foreign state? It is a big risk, yet the SNP refuses to say which currency Scotland would use if a deal to share the UK pound could not be done.
There is vague talk from Salmond of using the pound informally – which would leave Scotland without a lender of last resort. The result of the nationalist effort to pretend that leaving the UK comes without any cost or risk has, paradoxically, meant that the electorate in Scotland has actually been left with greater sense of risk. If on this issue, as with so many others, the Yes camp sets out a radical change, along with the risks and potential rewards, voters could make a judgement and some might even decide the gamble was worth it. Its dishonest strategy has only increased the level of doubt.
As a group of people who believe unquestioningly in the need for an independent Scotland, the nationalists now struggle to articulate why it is that we need independence. Their starting point has been an ill-defined promise of a more socially democratic nation. It is a familiar tune from them: We will be all the things that Labour used to be. Of course, while Labour was introducing the welfare state, the NHS and the minimum wage, the SNP was, as ever, arguing that what really mattered was independence.
Leaving aside its record in government, where it has been sacking nurses and cutting college places, the idea that the SNP are socialists seeking to build a Nordic model north of the border lacks basic credibility. Oil companies have been offered a cast-iron guarantee that taxes in the North Sea will not rise while multinational companies have been promised a Reaganomics race-to-the-bottom corporation tax cut of three per cent below the rate of the rest of the UK – regardless of what rate the rest of the UK has.
In contrast to the effort expended to reassure international business, on issues that matter to Scots, like pensions and welfare, the nationalists have failed to make basic preparations. When Scotland’s chartered accountants pointed out that cross-border pensions schemes are required to be fully funded under European Union rules it caught Scottish ministers completely by surprise, despite the fact that the creation of a new border would create a £200bn cost for UK pension schemes. When, at the start of this year, after five years in office, Scottish ministers gave a panel of experts less than six months to write a plan for establishing a new welfare state the experts concluded that separation presented ‘serious risks to the continuity of payments’. Remember, this is not an insurgent political movement: It has had the full power of the Scottish civil service at its disposal for six years now.
When you consider that the nationalists have been waiting 80 years for this moment, their failure to articulate a compelling, credible vision for independence is remarkable. However, those of us who want to maintain the unity of the UK cannot be complacent. The nationalists are well funded, disciplined and will devote every waking hour of the next year to their cause.
But we also cannot be complacent because the cause we are campaigning for is so important. In practical terms, sharing risks, rewards and resources with the rest of UK is a better future for Scots. We have the best of both worlds today with a distinctive Scottish voice in our parliament alongside the back-up of the bigger UK economy. But we should not lose sight of the principle at stake here. This is also a battle of ideas between division and unity. We are proud to argue that the people of this small island have far more that unites us than divides us.
———————————————————
Blair McDougall is campaign director of the Better Together campaign
———————————————————
———————————————————
Correction: The first sentence of the fourth paragraph originally read: Indeed, 55 per cent of people who said that they voted for the Scottish National party in 2011 have said that they are not in favour of independence.
……Vote Aye in 2014 :o)}
Why the pic of Salmond? The Yes campaign isn’t run by him. He merely leads the largest party within it. Labour, Greens, Socialists (remember them Blair…) and 1001 other smaller action groups play their part too…
Give us links to the evidence of your assertions! Oh and please explain why you’re running away from a debate with Blair Jenkins!
Is there anything so regressive than Blair McDougal and all the nonsense he regurgitates article after article in paper after paper…its all cannae dae this cannae dae that…..and in “progressonline”…amazing.
An unarguable fact is that 2/3rd of the electorate want more devolved powers, devo-max if you will, but British Nationialists such as BD ensured that was not an option for a democratic vote.
The Status Quo has proven to be deficient… Indepndence is the ONLY option
Vote ‘Yes!’ to be governed by a government we voted for.
Vote No to be voted by a government we didn’t vote for imposing policies on us we time and time reject. A ‘No vote’ is a vote to kill democracy in Scotland. A ‘No’ vote is to vote for a Tory-UKIP coalition government and removal of Holyrood
Point 1
Alex Salmond
Yes Scotland is much more than him or the SNP because people like McDougall want to create this illusion so people will not look at Yes Scotland as the civic nationalist movement and its many component parts, people and groups. He peddles the myth that it is the private pet project of Alex Salmond . Wrong. The SNP were elected by a majority in a PR Parliament in 2011 to do exactly what they are doing.
McDougall characterizes Salmond as a kind of Dr Evil figure plotting to con the deluded Jocks into a dark tunnel of horror and misery through independence. Fully 35% – 40% of Scots want to vote yes with 20% undecided so the No campaign he represents is a minority too. The many undecideds will hold the key.
Point 2
The currency.
Sterling is an internationally tradable currency which Scotland has part ownership of. We are not outsiders demanding to have something which we do not partly own. Can you imagine the collapse of sterling which would happen if Scotland said post independence – fine no fiscal pact we will have our 10% of the gold reserves from the Bank of England please. Osborne has NOT RULED OUT a fiscal pact because he knows that to do this would be a colossal act of self harm. But he cannot say yeah fiscal pact no problem – we need Scottish economic strength to bolster sterling because he, like McDougall, wants to create an issue where none exists.
Point 3
The risks
McDougall claims that the risks are all one way but he does not state the inconvenient truth of the consequences for Scotland of voting NO. The first is that the illusion of jam tomorrow promises of further devolution would go. No need the Jocks have voted to be British – they can now be ignored. Secondly Scotland would continue to be lashed to a UK economy in a terrible state. £16 billion deficit. £1.2 trillion National Debt. Rising inflation. Sterling becoming devalued by money printing. A UK “recovery” trumpeted by Osborne because of a housing bubble of more debt. Confidence in UK Bonds are beginning to waver. What if the Chinese want they money back quicker. The UK is on the edge of a bond apocalypse. McDougall was quiet on that.
Thanks for comments. Constructive and otherwise!
Maureen – i debate with Blair Jenkins all the time. Will keep doing so. In fact i just agreed another debate with him this morning. Not sure what you are referring to. If there are specific issues you would like sources on, happy to provide.
Jake – the SNP are the Government putting forward the White Paper which we will be voting on. Yes can’t escape the fact that this is the proposition we need to scrutinise. On the currency issue nationalists like to pretend the Pound is something we can use without a deal with the rest of the UK, it isn’t. Even the SNP Government’s own Fiscal Commission ruled it out, despite Alex Salmond pretending the Isle of Man model is one we could follow. If you don’t believe me you could always listen to the former economic adviser of Alex Salmond, Prof John Kay (see image).
On those saying no more powers if we stay in the UK – we have heard that all before from the SNP. I remember Alex Salmond saying before the 1997 referendum that he “wouldn’t trust Labour to deliver a pizza never mind a Scottish Parliament.” Not sure how that worked out for Alex Salmond and what his job is now… The Nationalist argument rest on the idea that the UK constitution is too inflexible. In fact the recent experience shows that just isn’t true.
I was talking about the public debate that Wings over Scotland were willing to set up and pay for.
Ah! I’m not going to take part in something that would endorse the hateful nonsense that comes from that blogger. Worth noting that Yes Scotland have now done a u-turn and said they won’t have anything to do with them either. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/yes-campaign-distance-themselves-pro-independence-2266858
The Daily Record is not a reliable source and it doesn’t say anywhere in the article that “they won’t have anything to do with him”. Twisting words does not help your cause although it’s what we all expect. Hateful nonsense – I don’t think so. Typical nonsense from Project Fear trying to demean what they are scared of.
Oh dear. If your position is that the Yes Scotland quote there is made up then I’m not sure what I can say. Have a good day.
You might want to take note that that blogger has a greater verifiable following than virtually any of the mainstream parties in Scotland. You might want to put your own hatred to one side for a moment and participate properly.
When is your next debate with Blair Jenkins? Why do we never hear about these debates you claim to have “all the time”?
You are quoting the Daily Record? Really? LOL
And some examples of the ‘hateful nonsense’ please? I suspect you dislike Wings over Scotland because they deconstruct ‘Better Together’ stories so comprehensively and completely.
You must fear being the subject of this blog. They do after all have more followers than BT or yourself Blair.
Can you give an example of this “hateful nonsense” from WingsOverScotland?
Oh Blair, poor baby. What have I ever said on Wings Over Scotland that’s “hateful”? Can you give me an example or two? I’ve never called anyone a traitor and I’ve never called anyone a quisling. More to the point, I’ve never called anyone a “virus” or a “fascist”.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/quoted-for-irony/
http://wingsoverscotland.com/alex-salmond-dictator-comparison-bingo/
And unlike you I don’t censor the vast bulk of people who disagree with me.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/louder-than-you-can-possibly-imagine/
Will Alistair Darling, your chairman, debate the Yes chairman, his direct counterpart, Dennis Canavan or not? If you won’t let my site arrange it, just say yes or no and I’m sure someone else will arrange it.
Facts. Just debate facts.
I did not say that Scotland use of Sterling would not take place without a Fiscal Pact.
My point is Blair that such a deal will be negotiated quite straightforwardly as you well know because it would be in the economic interests of the rUK to do so- Why?
(1) Osborne or any rUK Chancellor could not afford the the removal of 10% of the Bank of England’s gold reserve
(2) Scotland’s oil and gas resources exist as a vital underpinning to the value of Sterling. A currency which in all honesty needs as much support as it can get after the years of money printing Q.E. which has caused a substantial devaluation already.
The risk comes again as you well know that any further debasement of Sterling which (1) or (2) above would cause might lead to the loss of international confidence in the Bond markets and a rise in interest rates and then full blown economic collapse – this time with no bailouts because the UK government is effectively bankrupt.
Fiscal Pact? They will be biting our hands off for one but for political reasons neither Osborne nor yourself can admit this.
Only one person used the pizza analogy and it was Donald Dewar in a TV programme in 1999.
More drivel from BMcD. Will it never end? What, I hear you say – Sept next year. Thanks to all who posted. 🙂 Utterly delightful to read the verbal kicking he got in response to this boringly familiar and mind blowing repetitive malicious bundle of untruths.
I was at the march and demonstration at the weekend – except it wasn’t a demonstration because we weren’t complaining about anything. We were supporting something. There were 20,000 of us (for scale, this would compare to 200,000 marching in London). I dodged between a number of different groups behind a number of different banners. I started at the Women for Indy group of feminists to say hi to my sister. I said hi to people behind many of the YesScotland local campaign banners – good friends in North Edinburgh and Leith, people I spoke to in Glasgow and Lanarkshire groups, my own Clydesdale contingent. Then I made my way up to National Collective, the joyous and plain brilliant group of (mainly) young artists and creatives who have made this campaign fun (I urge you to check out their website before you draw another conclusion on Scotland from your own media). I spent a little time with Scottish CND which is backing a Yes. The Radical Independence Campaign is a giant group of diverse social progressives ranging from the SWP to green economics professors. There are thousands of us and in a year we’ve not had a fall-out. You may wish to read that sentence again. I know a couple of the Gaels for Independence people and they had the best pipers – but I couldn’t join in the Gaelic singing so moved on to the Greens who were in good fettle too. And in this list I’ve not even mentioned the SNP which was in a pretty small minority of the total, the Scottish Socialist Party who must have arrived late because they were right at the back. And I’m just skipping over the very large contingents of Basques, Catalans, Sicilians, Corsicans, Venetians, South Tyrollians and many other friends from overseas who flew in specially to join us with their wonderful banners and often in their national costumes. Oh, and the Cornish, the Welsh and the Irish were there too.
Did I forget the pandas? I think the whole parade had their photo taken with the two men dress in pandas. They also had my favourite banner of the day; “eats, shoots and believes”.
I doubt you could find a single person in that long line of humanity who would have a single bad word to say about the people of England. If you are offended by the extremely popular singalong of ‘I’d rather have a panda than a prince’, then it’s not because of your nationality but your politics. An elderly couple in the Green Party contingent started chatting to me having seen me in a TV debate. Their message was simple; “I’ve been marching for 50 years and until today I’ve always been marching against something, not for it”. They were very misty with emotion, inspired by the incredible number of young people around them. From their accents I think they were English; it of course never occurred to me to ask.
Oh England, this isn’t about you. Not at all. I must have told dozens of meetings that if the people of England get a chance for their own independence from the London ruling classes I’ll be the first to be down there putting leaflets through doors with you. It has got a cheer every time I’ve said it. This is a political campaign, and it is a very specific political campaign. If you are in England you will have no chance of knowing this, but had you stood on Calton Hill on Saturday you would have heard only one message; we’re sick of the inequality, the social breakdown, the decline of the public realm that Westminster has imposed on us. Not England, Westminster. You may not know this but it is the biggest campaign against neoliberal politics that Britain has seen. From their words alone I would challenge you to work out which of the speakers was the leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, which was the Deputy Leader of the SNP, which was the leader of the Scottish Greens, which was the convener of Labour for Independence, who the peace activist, who the feminist.
YOU. You need to be involved in speaking for Yes! You got this American for Independence very inspired by this. Six months ago I was neutral, at best, regarding the referendum. After a
heavy dose or reading, reading, and more reading (all views) I can
clearly state that this debate is VERY good! It’s good for everyone
involved! This can only be good for everyone that lives in the UK. The
people of England, along w/ everyone else, should be demanding better
governance! Don’t make assumptions of Americans. You’d be shocked how
many of us want you to succeed. It’s a pity that the media is
overwhelmingly (and blatantly obvious about it) biased through neglect,
as well as outright lying.
It’s your article Blair, so you can more or less say what you want. You get to make clear your position on various aspects of the independence debate, and even though I disagree with you on most of them, that’s still your right. I’ve no complaints.
Well, just the one.
You start the article aiming it at those in the UK, but outside Scotland. Those who may not be as up-to-speed with the debate as we are. That’s great, it’s good to reach out and help others understand the process involved in this important decision we’re taking.
So how would you like those people south of the border to understand the debate? What impression do you want to give them, of a democratic referendum agreed by both governments which deals with our constitutional position?
You must have had one of those ‘light-bulb’ moments. “I know, I’ll say Alex Salmond calls opponents in the debate ‘traitorous’.”
Why would you do that? It’s not because he’s ever actually used the word. Why would you wish to portray a democratic decision that way? I can only think of one reason why. You know you’re losing the argument. Despite your stated belief that the Yes campaign has stalled, that only 1 in 4 will vote Yes, you felt the need to portray the entire debate in an utterly false light.
I and thousands of other Yes campaign activists will continue to work in a positive fashion towards a Yes vote next September. Will we win? I hope so, but I don’t know for certain. But whichever way it goes, after the referendum is over, I’ll look back and be proud of the part I took in the democratic process. Will you?
Garve. I am incredibly proud to be campaigning for what I believe is best for my country and my kids future. You seem to think that Alex Salmond wasn’t calling us traitors when he labelled us a ‘parcel of rogues’? Not sure what other meaning can be ascribed to this. But it isn’t a one-off is it? His aide labelled us ‘anti-scottish’ and the FM defined our side of the argument as “making the case against Scotland.” One of teh constituent parties of Yes Scotland labelled Danny Alexander as a “quisling.” This stuff is just insulting and it is at the heart of how he is choosing to define the contest (consider his desperation to debate anyone but a fellow Scot). My starting point is that we all love Scotland and want the best for it – we just disagree about what best thing is. Lots of reasonable nationalists have that as the starting point. Is a pity the leader of the campaign doesn’t. Whether it is you or me celebrating on referendum night we will still be sharing a country. The language of division does none of us any favours.
Alex Salmond used the phrase ‘parcel of rogues’ to describe the actions of those who would claim that independence would lead to increased mobile ‘phone charges even though they knew that the charges were being phased out across Europe. I would have no compunction in calling someone who did that a ‘rogue’. It’s an entirely different thing to call someone “traitorous” – a leap you’ve taken with relish.
Your reference to Danny Alexander being called a quisling is, I think, about a tweet made by a member of the SSP. The tweet was nothing to do with independence, it was to do with the LibDems forming a coalition with the Conservatives.
Robin McAlpine writes an excellent article today on how the London-based media and political parties are trying to portray this democratic debate on how we should be governed as being one of ethnic animosity. You are adding to that perception.
Alex Salmond would not call you a traitor. Ask him. It’s you who is introducing the term.
Link to Robin’s article. http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/dear-england-please-listen-to-what-scots-are-actually-talking-about
Come off it. You know what the First Minister means and so does he – as he has said it over and over again. Here is just one direct quote. No ambiguity as to what he means: “Those in the London parties who would deny the people their right to
choose are the political reincarnation of the ‘parcel of rogues’ of 1707
who sold Scotland away.” The Danny Alexander quote is from the official SSP account – not some fringe person.
Your quote comes from 2007 when Labour, LibDems and Conservatives all opposed Scotland having a referendum at all; it reflects that in 1707 there was no democratic vote to join the union, and that in 2007 a vote was still being denied us. It does not use the word ‘traitorous’.
The Danny Alexander quote was from the official SSP account, but (I repeat) it was not about the independence debate, it was about the LibDems forming a coalition with the Conservatives. Trying to associate it with the referendum is simply an attempt to tarnish the whole process.
Division is coming Blair. It is increasing. Not due to Salmond or the SNP, but due to the increasingly acrimonious scare and fear stories being churned out at Westminster.
The UK Government and Better Together strategies are endangering Scotland and encouraging conflict.
“I am incredibly proud to be campaigning for what I believe is best for my country ”
Interesting use of the singular. Which country would that be?
The word “proud” is actually owned by Better Together, so it I deduce that it must be the UK. “Real” on the other hand is up for grabs, but is usually used as a prefix to “Scots”.
Really Blair? You take offense at “parcel of rogues”, “quisling” and “anti-Scottish”?
What about “Klan Alba”, “Should Scotland Go —- Itself” and calling people a “virus”?
If that’s not willfully offensive and divisive language then I don’t know what is.
You’re wrong Blair, very wrong.
It isn’t about “nationalism”, not on the YES side, anyway. I’m sorry, but the UK is broken, and the idea that it ever was about “pooling resources” is nonsense. When Scotland joined the British state (involuntarily, except for individual parliamentarians who were, quite literally, bribed with suitcases of money to vote the right way) in 1707, it had about 1/5th the population that England then had. Now, the population ratio of Scotland to England is less than half that: less than 1/10. If Scotland had prospered under the Union, if Scotland had had its share of the wealth of the United Kingdom, then people would have wanted to live and work in Scotland as much as any other part of the UK. They didn’t, because Scotland was impoverished by the Union. The Union never has been fair, and Scotland still contributes more than it receives. Not only that, but our priorities are different: we are not anxious to throw our weight about on the world stage “punching above our weight”, glorying in past conquests and massacres on foreign soil, and waggling our nuclear hardware around, nor do we see any wisdom in privatising healthcare or the post office or education, making people pay for being ill or old, demonising immigrants, or subsidising bankers when they screw up with other people’s money. Sorry, but we are sick of the way the UK has been run by governments we didn’t elect and whose priorities we do not share. It’s over. We love you very dearly, and we’ll always live next door and be friends, but you don’t rule us any more.
Not sure who you are directing ‘you don’t rule us anymore’ is directed to Ed. I am a Scot living in Scotland. Not sure there is much to say to change your mind but this suggestion that we pay-in more than we get just doesn’t stand any scrutiny. According to most recent SNP figures we pay £56.9bn in taxes but spend £64.5bn. For another source on this, the impartial IFS report from last week is worth a read if you have time. http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/public_services_scotland_pr.pdf
Sorry, but it’s your selective maths that’s the problem, Blair. I’ll spell it out for you in case you don’t quite get it. The figures, by the way, are not “SNP figures”, but Scottish Government figures, based on the UK Government’s own statistics. (Available here if anybody else is interested: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00415871.pdf ). The UK government operated on a deficit in the period in question (2011-12). The £56.9bn in revenue raised from Scotland is 9.9% of the UK total; the £64.5bn per capita share of the expenditure is 9.3% of the UK total. That means that Scotland is in general better able to pay its way than the UK as a whole, not less, and thus it also means that Scotland does not receive its fair share of expenditure under the present constitutional arrangement. I don’t care where you live or where you come from, by the way, Blair, but you seem to support the idea that Scotland’s defence, foreign affairs, tax and welfare should be run by a parliament in some other country whose election results we rarely if ever affect. That’s the point.
I have an excellent PowerPoint presentation that breaks down and explains all aspects of GERS.
It tells the truth, unlikely your selective extraction from it above. By the way, how much did the whole of the UK spend compared to raise in Taxes, during the same period?
My sole mission over the next 11 months is to take as many people as possible through GERS. Let me know your email and I’ll send you a copy of my highly illustrative presentation showing just what the Union doesn’t do for Scotland.
I’ll look at it!
Can I find you online? On twitter? Or where?
@mrmchoohaa 🙂 Thanks! Sorry it took 39463 years to get back.
And do you use Apple keynote or Microsoft PowerPoint? 🙂
I do! Keynote.
please send me this presentation, i will share it with everyone i know
HA HA HA.. This writer is either a complete fool…who is he trying to fool, there is real grass roots support for independence everywhere, apart from the opinion polls. Come the day, cometh the hour.
Well to be fair, Blair’s article meant I got to see Garve’s link to Robin McAlpine’s article, so it has served some useful purpose. Yes Shetland!
50,000 people Blair marched in Manchester rallying to save and stop the NHS sell off through the back door in England because they know thats the way if the Tories remain in power at Westminster it is going to go.
I trust the Scottish Government to run and keep the NHS in the public domain (and other public services) for the good of the people rather than the profit of private health companies that are slowly creeping in through the back door of Westminster legislation.
You’re take on the Scottish government trying to provide services on a reduced budget from Westminster reinforces the need that a lot of the people feel in Scotland at this moment in time that are wanting full powers and fiscal budget/ GDP in the hands of a Scottish government to provide for the good of the Scottish people and leave the London-centric policies of the Tories/Westminster behind.
You’re pathological hate of the SNP and Salmond and the anti-English rhetoric that according to you and the better together camp is at the heart of the Yes campaign is plain wrong and wearing thin, making you/BT look empty of positives and just full of negative bile.
The Yes camp as you well know is a diverse grassroots campaign of all political persuasions,Labour for Independence,The Greens,SSP,SNP,Lib-Dems for Independence, and many many others.
The constant tainting/ misuse of the word nationalism as a virus (Johann Lamont) and others from BT is also beginning to look weak when you look at the results of the census 2011 when there are more people across the border in England that see themselves as ‘English’ before British, more even than in Scotland by comparison.
As you well know the Yes campaign is more than just about being pro Scottish it’s the aim of having a more democratic system voted in by the Scottish people doing its best for the Scottish people,something that Westminster whoever has been in charge Labour/Conservative has failed to do over the decades, whoever has been at no 10.
As this site is nationwide, for the people who are reading Blair McDougall’s blog i can honestly say the Yes movement is for a better way/political system and has nothing to do with being anti-English,or Welsh and N irish for that matter.
Like a lot of people in the middle to north England and elsewhere, if they had the chance to start again and leave behind the self serving Kleptocracy that is Westminster i am pretty sure they would jump at the chance.
How did this pile of drivel ever get published? Who gave Blair McDougall the right to speak for everybody in Scotland? The opinion polls that favour the NO camp are weighted by UK election voting habits. The Panelbase polls that show a favourable result for the YES camp are weighted by Holyrood voting habits. And as I’m sure we are all aware, the SNP currently form the only government in the UK voted into power by a majority vote. Which is actually supposed to be impossible under the system in place for Holyrood elections.
So the SNP have secured two consecutive terms in government. Achieved election to government for the second term by pulling off the impossible and the sky has yet to fall.
But back to the polls. What do they tell us? Well if Scottish voters view this referendum as a Scottish issue, as David Cameron Prime Minister of the UK claims it is. Then Panelbase have the more accurate results and we’re likely to vote for independence.
Considering what George Osborn announced at the Tory conference. I sincerely hope we vote YES to independence.
More pathetic scaremongering Blair – but then we’ve come to expect nothing-less and nothing-more from you. Maintain that level of arrogance … I cannot wait to see your greeting face in September 2014.
I’m sorry. THIS is a site about ‘progress?’ In your mind, staying the same, doing the same, and being fearful of what can be, ..is progress ?
Blair, I hadn’t realised you were up amongst the fantasy greats… like Enid Blyton and Joan Collins. Keep at it. I foresee dizzy heights for you. Theodor Seuss Geisel had better watch out.
Seriously I have never seen such a perverted view of reality. Well done.
Blair, you sum up by saying “This is also a battle of ideas between division and unity.”
I disagree – it is a battle of ideas between democracy and subservience, and nothing you say here convinces me that continued subservience is good enough for my children, or their children after them.
Blair, you must surely recognise that the Zeitgeist in Scotland is in favour of change, a move away from Westminster hegemony. The majority are just trying to make sense of the propaganda.
The Union’s days are numbered.
Even if it’s a ‘No’ vote next September, it will not be due to ‘fair debate’, but entirely attributable to a Westminster propaganda machine. In which case, it will be a pyrrhic victory for the ‘No’ camp. The rebound will be swift and decisive when Westminster reneges on its ‘Jam Tomorrow’ promises.
Incidentally, Westminster and Mainstream media are doing an excellent job of ensuring of driving people online in search of truth. Witness the relentless increase in Wings Over Scotland or Business for Scotland readership / membership.
In the meantime, ordinary people are online in their thousands to counter ridiculous articles like this one.
“55 per cent of people who said that they voted for the Scottish National party in 2011 have said that they are not in favour of independence”
Have they? Is there a source for this claim?
Blair says:
“Most readers of this article will likely be inside the UK but outside of Scotland and so may not have been following Scotland’s debate as closely as those of us living it every day”
If they read the comments they will learn a lot more than if they read Blair’s article 🙂
Really Blair? You take offense at “parcel of rogues”, “quisling” and “anti-Scottish”?
What about “Klan Alba”, “Should Scotland Go —- Itself” and calling people a “virus”?
If that’s not willfully offensive and divisive language then I don’t know what is.
You’re wrong Blair, very wrong.
The truth here is really that the Westminster government have too much to lose from this. By losing ownership of Scotland and its resources, they’ll lose the money that’s been funding their massive pay rises, and those of their millionaire banker buddies, for decades.
People as arrogant as Cameron and Osborne are unlikely to enjoy the idea of having to make deals on equal terms with the people they’ve been lording it over and treating like livestock for so long.
This so-called campaign to keep the union together is simply all about the money and who gets to control it.
If Westminster honestly cared about the people of Scotland, do you think they’d be knowingly forcing through policies that have such a devastating effect on peoples’ lives?
They take away the rights and services that our ancestors fought so hard for? (I speak of course of such things as the NHS which is slowly being dismantled on the sly, not to mention a fair working wage which is being eroded away by increasing incidences of so-called “Zero Hour Contracts”).
They impose further stresses and strains on people who are already struggling to survive below the poverty line (odd how mainstream media never seems to report on that, isn’t it? I wonder how many people truly know the full extent of the problem). The Bedroom Tax is a prime example, and Osborne himself has freely admitted to planning further cuts, piling on even more pressure.
In short, Scotland is a country that’s being slowly pulled apart by greedy people who care only about themselves. They say they have to impose so many cuts because the country is in severe debt? Ok, but how come they could afford to award themselves that huge pay rise just after the Bedroom Tax came in? I wonder where they got the money for that from?
Couldn’t have been from the Bedroom Tax, as statistically that’s actually COSTING them far more than it claims to save!
It’s not about whether we want to become independent or not. Personally, I don’t think we have a choice any more. It’s not just about our independence, it’s about our future survival and that of future generations.
We have nothing to lose, and so much to gain from this last chance to take control of our own lives.
I’m not going to go telling everyone how to vote though. That’s not my style.
What I will say is: IGNORE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA! They are not telling both sides of the story here.
Do your own research. Find the facts from sources that aren’t contaminated by either side of the debate or bought up and influenced by the bias of mainstream media.
You’ll figure out the right path to take on your own.
Good luck for the future, whichever way you decide to go! 🙂
This is what it’s been about from the start. They’re going to lose A LOT. Confuse, lie, devalue, deflect. The more reaction there is, the more fear there is. Freud.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/blair-mcdougall-fact-check/
Google Derek Bateman ( very recently ex-BBC) for his blog beginning to reveal the institutional bias towards the Labour Party at BBC Scotland.
More revelations to come it appears 🙂
The problem for Blair Mcdougall (and Better Together overall) is they are desperate to conflate Salmond and independence as one and the same thing.
Not only is a completely untenable position, it’s also deeply insulting to the intellect of the Scottish electorate.
Independence is about restoring democracy to Scotland, whereby Scots get the government the majority of the population vote for. It is not about any single individual politician.
Once the electorate realise this (and they will, eventually) The union is doomed.
Why?
At the moment Scotland gets whoever England votes for. This is not anti-English, but basic arithmetic. Scotland is outnumbered 10 to 1 in terms of population, which makes this democratic deficit inevitable in such an imbalanced union.
In point of fact, Scottish votes haven’t altered the outcome of a UK general election since WW2. Take away all Scots votes and the results would be exactly the same.
This means that a Scots vote cast is virtually worthless. The vast majority of the UK population lives in England, and it is they who decide the government for the WHOLE UK.
This is the fundamental reason that the union is bound to fail. Now that Scotland & England are diverging rapidly politically & ideologically, the fundamental imbalances outlined above become sharply defined.
It’s also worth remembering that Scottish unionists such as Mcdougall aren’t just fighting to save the union, they’re also fighting to save their careers. Unionist politicians by their very nature are in thrall to the Westminster village. Like it or not, This is also a personal battle driven by ambition.
Don’t look now, but.. http://wingsoverscotland.com/blair-mcdougall-fact-check/
I see Blair McDougall constantly refers to the Yes campaign as the SNP. This is simply untrue. The Scottish Greens, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Radical Independence Campaign, members of Scottish Labour, independent figures, such as Margo MacDonald and Dennis Canavan, National Collective, trade union members, and others support independence. To constantly portray the independence movement as solely being the SNP is simply not the truth.
Truth?? You are expecting truth?
Truth is alongside the Jam… Tomorrow!
I think this ‘best of both worlds’ argument is pretty weak and unambitious – it is pretty obvious that the union is one sided, and we are making big sacrifices to stay part of an unbalanced UK focused on London.
There must be a better way.
I’m struggling to find any part of this article that isn’t distortion, downright dishonesty or evidence of a serious delusional affliction. Blair McDougall, the hapless architect of Project Fear and 0f 500 – or was it 507? – failed propaganda efforts has truly excelled himself with this litany of drivel.
The dispassionate reader might first of all wonder at the inane audacity of a senior figure in the anti-independence presuming to be in a position to offer an unbiased assessment of where things stand in the referendum debate. should they persist despite this idiocy, they will next encounter the first of many gross distortions in the claim that the referendum is happening “in spite of the level of support for independence, rather than because of it”. The reality, as any moderately well-informed individual will be aware, is that the referendum is happening despite the efforts of the British parties to prevent the people of Scotland having a say on the matter of their nation’s constitutional status.
That the people of Scotland wanted a referendum is not in doubt. Indeed, the British parties were themselves eventually forced to admit as much. But only after Scottish voters gave them an electoral slapping in 2011 just to remind them who they are accountable to.
McDougall goes on to make a patently ludicrous claim about more than half of SNP voters actually being opposed to independence. Without, of course, providing any evidence to back up this little gobbet of nonsense.
The same people who wondered at McDougall’s foolishness in setting himself up as an unbiased commentator on the state of the referendum campaign will by this time be wondering what qualifies him to act as a spokesperson for the SNP. He spends an inordinate amount of time telling us about the attitudes and motivations of an organisation with which he has no connection and for which he harbours a seething animosity that he makes no attempt to conceal.
Does this buffoon seriously imagine anybody in their right mind would regard him as a reliable source? For anyone more in touch with the Scottish politics than Blair McDougall – which is anyone not in a coma – the stuff about Scotland’s independence campaign being a one-man project only recently launched by Alex Salmond may well be a denial too far of known historical fact.
Anyone even passingly familiar with the rhetoric of the SNP and Scotland’s wider civic nationalist movement will find nothing that they recognise in McDougall’s representation. They will know that it is nothing to do with England or its people. They will be well aware of the fact that it is only the political union with the British state that we seek to end. They will realise that McDougall’s talk of breaking away from the social union with the rest of these islands is no part of Scotland’s independence project and is, rather, a figment of the man’s hate-warped imagination.
The paragraph berating Alex Salmond and the independence movement of a campaign based on identity is arguably the best example of McDougall’s pathological hypocrisy. It is the campaign for which he is responsible that resorts to banal, union-jack-draped jingoism. It is on the the Better Together website that you’ll find the references to “patriotism” and “real Scots. It is from British nationalist mouthpieces like Johann Lamont and Anas Sarwar that you will hear opponents decried as a disease and the institutions of Scotland’s democracy denigrated as “undemocratic” and a “dictatorship”.
Having sampled McDougall’s hypocrisy, we get a taste of his duplicity. He talks of the SNP’s plans for becoming independent as if they represented the entirety of what being independent would entail. He totally ignores the wider independence campaign and the flourishing of diverse political discourse that has accompanied it to focus his bile on the hated SNP. In doing so he casually insults the thousands of people throughout Scotland who are developing truly progressive ideas for an independent Scotland such as would be unthinkable if we were to continue to be subject to the old political order that McDougall serves.
The transitional stages and early days of independence are being planned for by the Scottish Government in the same pragmatic, methodical way that they have run the administration for the last six years. They are being totally honest with the people of Scotland about what, lacking a mandate to do more, might be the limits to what they can promise as a starting point.
It is British labour and their Tory allies who are presenting the false prospectus. It is not independence that is being watered down by the SNP. How could it be when it is not theirs to define? It is devo-whatever that is being dishonestly talked up by the British parties as the acceptable substitute for independence that it could never be even if there was the slightest hope of it actually being delivered by any UK Government in the event of a No vote which would deprive Scotland of the very leverage which has elicited the jam tomorrow promises in the first place.
The SNP offers “indy-realistic”. The wider independence campaign is developing the prospectus for “indy-real”. The British parties in Scotland have opted out of the debate about Scotland’s future altogether. They stand only for the preservation of the British state and the old order, Despite this, they will dishonestly present themselves as offering devo-whatever tarted up to look like “indy-;lite” when all they really have to offer is the very dishonesty and duplicity we seek independence, in part at least, to escape from.
McDougall goes on in the same obnoxious vein for far longer than I am prepared to stomach. There is nothing new here. Just a dreary rehashing of old lies previously exposed and scare stories long since comprehensively debunked. He seems to think that by repetition alone he can lend substance to such vacuous garbage. Nowhere in all of this dire dirge of smears, fears and grinding negativity do we find so much as one glimmer of aspiration for Scotland. There are no ideas. No hopes. No dreams. Only rancid resentment, bitter hatred and utter despair.
If there was lingering doubt that Better Together represents the politics of fear then Blair McDougall has completely dispelled those doubts with this deplorable diatribe. Ask yourself one question! Do you really want this to be the voice that speaks for Scotland?
I suggest you take a more open-minded and less partisan and bitter approach to the whole subject of the referendum.