Title Unionism that is the underground and over ground force that sits across Scotland like a plague. It is to be found in social organisations, sports clubs (golf , lawnbowls football ) and in a subtle silent army of Mail, Express Herald readers. And it is well funded secretly and publicly by para state organisations and big donor private sector players.
There is Unionism and there is British Nationalism. A Unionist is someone who has never questioned the Union. A British Nationalist is someone who insists nobody ever should question the Union.
That's the perspective no one will read about, even in the National. The lack of any sign of enthusiasm from the SNP government is emphasised by the lack of needful information contained within its series of Whitepapers.
Keith Brown 's comments in the National state the obvious. He says the SNP welcomes contributions on how to progress independence, suggesting he hasn't a scooby himself. If he wants people to vote SNP for a better future in an independent Scotland, then the SNP need to provide the evidence of what an independent Scotland would be like from a grass roots point of view. Pensions and currency would help for starters.
If only it were true that "the SNP welcomes contributions on how to progress independence". The reality, as you know, alan, is that they've spent the last nine years or more frantically trying to silence dissenting voices and suppress new ideas.
Where I part company with you is on the notion that it is possible to provide "evidence" for a particular future. It's just not possible. Such evidence cannot exist. Unless someone has cracked the problem of time travel and brought back evidence of what it is like, there can be no "evidence".
You can speculate about what the future might be like. But such speculation is inevitably based on a set of assumptions. So, you then have to justify each and every one of those assumptions. Even if you do, it's guarantedd that someone else will speculate a very different future on the basis of markedly different assumptions that are equally well justified. So, which of the 'visions' of the future is the one voters are supposed to accept. Multiply the number of 'visions' by ten or twently and you hav a picture of the first Yes campaign.
Anyone who claims to know that monetary policy will be this while fiscal policy will be that and pensions will be whatever is a liar. Apart from anything else, there's the question of when. What time or period in the future are these liars who take us for fools referring to? Is it immediately upon independfence being restored? Is it 10 to 20 years after? Will the 'vision' still hold after 50 years? Or 100?
It's all patently nonsensical.
One of the tricks the British state pulled in the 2014 referendum campaign was luring the Yes side - espaecially the SNP - into debating policy as if this was an election rather than a referendum. They could no win a constitutional debate. So they induced everybody to talk about other things instead. Things that were totally irrelevant to the constitutional issue. But, crucially, things about which it was easy to generate doubt. As easy as asking questions - incessantly.
It wasn't 'Project Fear'. It was 'Project Doubt' wot won it for them. And a very large part of the independence movement STILL hasn't learned the lesson.
And don't give me that pish about currency and pensions being the things people were asking about on the doorstep. They asked - to the extent that any did - for no other reason than that they were primed to do so by the media. If the Yes campaign hadn't so tamely gone along with the agenda set by the media on behalf of the British state, people would have been asking entirely different questions on the doorsteps.
I am weary, Alan. I'm weary for two reasons. One is that this is, without exaggeration, the thousandth time I've explained all this. The other is that it shouldn't have needed explaining at all.
Tory ism is not important it is their other
Title Unionism that is the underground and over ground force that sits across Scotland like a plague. It is to be found in social organisations, sports clubs (golf , lawnbowls football ) and in a subtle silent army of Mail, Express Herald readers. And it is well funded secretly and publicly by para state organisations and big donor private sector players.
There is Unionism and there is British Nationalism. A Unionist is someone who has never questioned the Union. A British Nationalist is someone who insists nobody ever should question the Union.
Both are a blight on Scotland.
That's the perspective no one will read about, even in the National. The lack of any sign of enthusiasm from the SNP government is emphasised by the lack of needful information contained within its series of Whitepapers.
Keith Brown 's comments in the National state the obvious. He says the SNP welcomes contributions on how to progress independence, suggesting he hasn't a scooby himself. If he wants people to vote SNP for a better future in an independent Scotland, then the SNP need to provide the evidence of what an independent Scotland would be like from a grass roots point of view. Pensions and currency would help for starters.
If only it were true that "the SNP welcomes contributions on how to progress independence". The reality, as you know, alan, is that they've spent the last nine years or more frantically trying to silence dissenting voices and suppress new ideas.
Where I part company with you is on the notion that it is possible to provide "evidence" for a particular future. It's just not possible. Such evidence cannot exist. Unless someone has cracked the problem of time travel and brought back evidence of what it is like, there can be no "evidence".
You can speculate about what the future might be like. But such speculation is inevitably based on a set of assumptions. So, you then have to justify each and every one of those assumptions. Even if you do, it's guarantedd that someone else will speculate a very different future on the basis of markedly different assumptions that are equally well justified. So, which of the 'visions' of the future is the one voters are supposed to accept. Multiply the number of 'visions' by ten or twently and you hav a picture of the first Yes campaign.
Anyone who claims to know that monetary policy will be this while fiscal policy will be that and pensions will be whatever is a liar. Apart from anything else, there's the question of when. What time or period in the future are these liars who take us for fools referring to? Is it immediately upon independfence being restored? Is it 10 to 20 years after? Will the 'vision' still hold after 50 years? Or 100?
It's all patently nonsensical.
One of the tricks the British state pulled in the 2014 referendum campaign was luring the Yes side - espaecially the SNP - into debating policy as if this was an election rather than a referendum. They could no win a constitutional debate. So they induced everybody to talk about other things instead. Things that were totally irrelevant to the constitutional issue. But, crucially, things about which it was easy to generate doubt. As easy as asking questions - incessantly.
It wasn't 'Project Fear'. It was 'Project Doubt' wot won it for them. And a very large part of the independence movement STILL hasn't learned the lesson.
And don't give me that pish about currency and pensions being the things people were asking about on the doorstep. They asked - to the extent that any did - for no other reason than that they were primed to do so by the media. If the Yes campaign hadn't so tamely gone along with the agenda set by the media on behalf of the British state, people would have been asking entirely different questions on the doorsteps.
I am weary, Alan. I'm weary for two reasons. One is that this is, without exaggeration, the thousandth time I've explained all this. The other is that it shouldn't have needed explaining at all.