Hope v Fear

Living our lives in hope is what most of us try to do, but continually politicians do their best to crush our aspirations by restricting our potential.  They are skilled at the subtle use of fear, dressed in vacuous political speak.

The same can't be said of the leader of the No campaign against independence for Scotland.  Alistair Darling and his cronies have decided fear is to be there weapon in their campaign to convince undecideds to vote No.

“If we decide to leave the United Kingdom, there is no way back.

“It is like asking us to buy a one-way ticket to send our children to a deeply uncertain destination.”

Do they really believe that people will be impressed by such scaremongering?  As for mentioning children in this manner, I find that rather sinister, but children have been used in many campaigns recently - the global warming one is an example - and few have protested.

Today he's also expected to say:

“The truth is that this coming together of family, friends, ideas, institutions and identities is a strength, not a weakness. It is an ideal worth celebrating.”

He's implying when Scotland becomes independent we will be cut adrift from families and friends in other parts of the UK.  I must remember to buy a stack of notelets to send to family and friends living outside Scotland to bid them a fond cheerio.

The No campaign have employed the services of an American company to promote their message and this morning lucky rail travellers could find themselves in possession of their first campaign leaflet, which will be handed out at railway stations.  None for bus travellers I note.

The leaflet will highlight the one in five workers employed by English firms in Scotland and also the 800,000 Scots who live and work in England and Wales 'without the need for papers or passports'.  I find it hard to believe that anyone will be intimidated by the threat of 'papers or passports' given that now, in the UK, you need both to open a simple bank account.

So the campaign will be one of hope versus fear. No surprise really as the unionists have nothing to offer the Scots apart from the 2012 Scotland Bill, which offers little improvement to the status quo.

But the unionists have one deep seated fear and that is anyone asking them what they have to offer other than ensuring they won't give our children a one-way ticket to nowhere.  They have no offer to make on further devolution and excuse themselves by saying discussions will take place after the referendum.  The people need to know exactly what they will be offered beforehand.

There was a distinct hint of pretentiousness when Michael Moore was asked the question on yesterday's Sunday Politics (at approximately 43 minutes). If you listen until the end of his interview, you will hear him contradict himself by saying 'let's have a simple straight forward proposition, resolve that, and then we can get on and work through the remaining issues of what more powers we want for Scotland'.

Now we know the unionists will offer nothing but fear.

source

Tweet

Is The Current Scotland Bill Dead?

How often do we read what disasters 'could' befall an independent Scotland?

Last weekend the SoS published an article with the headline 'Jim Murphy warns that independence could cost thousands of defence jobs'. There it is again, the unionist 'could' - suggestive scaremongering and rather ironic considering the job loses currently affecting HM Forces.  The unionists' only option is to campaign in 'could' mode because they have no other choice.

Last week David Cameron, on his visit to the central belt, stated he 'may' offer further powers to Scotland - but only if the people vote NO. This weekend's SoS reports Alistair Darling suggesting a similar proposal, but with slightly - very slightly - more detail:

“The short answer is that obviously income tax is easier because it is easy to identify and the Revenue knows who Scottish taxpayers are. It would be relatively easy to implement.”

Darling admits that all this would be academic anyway if we voted for independence and his proposal is as weak as Cameron's: "If you are staying then you look at that (more powers)."

I'm not convinced by the latest unionist attempt at appeasement purely because I have no trust in Westminster politicians and their care of Scotland. A power which is 'easy to implement' is not necessarily one for the good of Scotland and if ease of implementation is the basis for the Scotland Bill 2010-12, it doesn't bode well.

Scottish Labour is stuck between a rock and a hard place because they want to show themselves as supportive of a more powerful devolved settlement than suggested by the present Bill, while keeping it off the independence ballot paper.

 People know the results of being part of the UK for over 300 years and few politicians are silly enough to spell out the present-day benefits, so rely on this new style of negative campaigning. It's gentler than their old 'We're too wee' and 'We couldn't afford to support ourselves'.  It's negativity by suggestion and can work extremely well - so my psychologist friend tells me. The use of could and would softens the negative message but the suggestion alone is effective.

The question is - will the people trust the UK government to deliver on jam tomorrow?

There's no doubt the current version of the Scotland Bill going through the processes of Westminster will be kicked into the long grass by the present Scottish government, but should the people vote NO in 2014, it could be all London is prepared to offer their irritating neighbour up north.

Tweet