Another reason to vote YES!
Showing posts with label Yes Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yes Scotland. Show all posts
Friday, 28 March 2014
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Monday, 3 September 2012
Independence And 'Yes Scotland'
A guest post by Apogee.
The more I read about this the more I feel I am being asked to sign a blank cheque. The more I read the less I know.
I still do not have a clue what the aim of independence is apart from changing the captain in the middle of the sargasso sea and the ones on the boat are as slippery as the eels in the water and with as many teeth.
If I am asked to jump out of the frying pan I want to know what I am jumping into. Where are we going with this country?
There is too much that they don't want us to know; faith means having trust and I would not turn my back on any of them, of either side, without first removing my wallet from my hip pocket and keeping it gripped tightly in my hands.
If they cannot tell the population what they intend to do about the EUSSR and the euro, is it because they haven't a clue or they know we will not like it?
Before faith I want to see some answers and some truth. Remember what the result of blind obedience was for the troops at the Somme. I would like to know that the wannabe leaders at least know what the aim of the campaign is - so far they seem to want to surrender to the enemy. And no one is saying otherwise.
Blind faith and generally inept leadership defeated us in 1745 and this is looking to be a replay. There is not even anything to inspire the troops. Seriously, who is going to lead this army to be?
And what are the aims of the 'Yes Scotland' campaign we are being asked to support? For that matter, what are the aims of the 'No' campaign? A general idea of keeping the status quo and possibly taking things back? Both sides are as fuzzy as each other.
So is independence to be just a means to escape Westminster but stay locked into the EU? That is not independence; that is allowing a situation where, in a very short time, every natural asset we have/had would be transferred to EU control. The commission rules allow this scenario.
The only sure way of regaining what we used to have - fishing waters for a start - is complete independence under international law and then make mutually beneficial treaties as we wish. Maybe Iceland is a good example.
Never again should we hand our Sovereignty to any other country or power on a 'one-way' deal. Never again the stupidity that got us into the 'United Kingdom' that started this off. But then, we have to stop trusting politicians with fancy plans and follow the money trail in all this, because it is not government money it is your money they are spending.
See who is getting the pay off, because whatever is agreed to or not agreed to, the money to pay for it comes out of your pocket. Make sure you know what you are signing up to and be sure it is worth it.
Why do we not just declare UDI and walk away?
Yes, I am royally pissed off with this business. We would be wise to trust none of them and their fuzzy schemes.
A final thought - or is it just me?- would it be convenient for some if the Coalition collapsed in mid-2014 and wrecked the independence referendum because of the necessity to hold a general election?
It would be another example of the EU and a 'beneficial crisis' of which there have been many.
Wednesday, 15 August 2012
Unhappy 'No' Campaigners
It appears the Yes campaigners, in particular Willie Rennie of the Libdems, aren't too happy with Martin Sime, the chief executive of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. Mr Sime dated to read an email from the Scottish Government, in which mention was made of a second referendum question.
Recently it was reported that the SCVO, which is campaigning for greater devolution, said a poll it had organised found 56% of voters wanted a second question on more
powers at the referendum. The No campaign won't discuss the possibility of having a second question as they don't want all opinions to be considered - only their own for the status quo.
SCVO Chief Exec Martin Sime should go. He sought to undermine Better Together launch + now has been caught plotting with SNP adviser.
Monday, 13 August 2012
Bring Back Public Meetings
Why does the unionist side of the Scottish independence debate expect the SNP to answer such questions?
Why do they think it's the sole responsibility of the SNP to announce proposals when there are many outwith the restraints of a political party who also believe Scotland could - and should - be an independent country.
I can understand why Alex Salmond and his party's reluctance to put forward more of their ideas, because in recent months any proposal announced has been ridiculed by unionists. No explanation given by them of course, just the usual 'it won't work'. Continual negativity is the mantra of the 'better together' camp.
However, in the coming months, somehow the 'Yes' campaigners need to create a platform on which their proposals can be thoroughly debated. The public have to be included and every effort made to listen to every argument. Public meetings in every nook and cranny of the country should be held and every encouragement given to communities to join in the debate. People do want a vision of an independent Scotland and if every public meeting dealt in detail with one aspect of concern - such as state pensions - then over the next year much could be available for further debate.
The public aren't stupid. They realise current proposals are just that - proposals. They know it's only once independence is won that Westminster will be forced to enter into negotiations with Holyrood.
Discussion is moving along nicely though with independence supporters, but it must be remembered not everyone wants to join a group and also Scotland is much bigger than just the central belt.
Modern social networking, such as Twitter, does not reach the majority of the population and although these outlets assist by spreading a message, face-to-face debate will always be the preference of voters. Television could be an excellent medium but these days political debate is far too stage (and party) managed.
If the Yes campaign manages to organise itself by providing every community - no matter how large or small - with the facility to meet together as often as possible, it will leave the unionists standing gawping on the sidelines and looking impotent.
Monday, 2 July 2012
A Little Mystery Revealed
Last week the question of the No campaign funders was shrouded in mystery, but no longer.
A little investigative journalism by the Herald's Tom Gordon and Paul Hutcheon has revealed some of the money is coming from the United and Cecil Club which had to forfeit an 'impermissible' donation last year. In other words it accepted £850 from a donor who was not on the UK electoral register and therefore could not make a legal donation.
The Tory dining club is run from Hickmans Lane, Lindfield, Haywards Heath, a town more than 350 miles from Scotland. It has about 400 members and according to the Electoral Commission, has donated £100,000 to the conservative party since 2008. To date none of the registered donations went to Scotland.
It's no surprise the No campaign funding will be coming from south of the border as the unionist parties' HQs are all controlled from London. Can Labour afford to contribute much when they have nearly £10 million in outstanding loans?
It was refreshing to hear Blair Jenkins, on yesterday's Sunday Politics (approx 30 minutes in), state that the Yes campaign will not accept donations of more than £500 from anyone who is not on the electoral role in Scotland. What are the chances of the No campaigners pledging such a principle?
source
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Who Are Funding The No Campaign?
This is an excellent decision by Alex Salmond and ought to bring non-political supporters on board.
The leadership combination of Blair Jenkins and Dennis Canavan will produce a solid base for the Yes Scotland campaign.
However, I echo the queries of one of the article's commenters:
Thanks for the information about the Yes financing. Scrutiny always needed.
On the same point how is the No campaign financed? Who are its backers and where are they based? Are they Conservative businessmen?
Who are the people funding the No campaign or as unionists now prefer to call it Better Together?
picture courtesy of the Guardian.
Tuesday, 12 June 2012
What's Patrick Harvie Up To?
When the Scottish Green Party's joint lead, Patrick Harvie, stood alongside Alex Salmond at the launch of the Yes Scotland campaign a fortnight ago I thought there had been a pre-launch understanding that the Greens would take a strong role in the promotion of independence for Scotland.
However it would appear not all was as it seemed when Patrick Harvie signed his support on the whiteboard. Now he says:
"We feel frustrated by the lack of progress towards a genuinely inclusive campaign, and concerned that a non-inclusive campaign will be less likely to succeed."
Green policy is to support independence and the party advocates a multi-option referendum. The question of a multi-option being on the ballot paper has yet to be decided and so too is the party's formal joining for the 'Yes' vote.
What I can't understand is why Patrick Harvie decided taking a high profile part in the campaign launch was a good idea when his party had not formally joined the campaign because it 'was not inclusive enough'.
It's obvious the SNP would be the lead party in the campaign because its manpower and resources are much higher than the Greens could muster, but I think Mr Harvie has done his party and himself a disservice complaining so soon after he was filmed smiling broadly in the company of other independence supporters. What is his point?
Have the party members complained that they were never informed of his close association with the Yes Scotland campaign or has Patrick decided to make waves because his voice isn't being heard?
It could be a little of both but certainly he hasn't done himself any favours by moaning about inclusivity. His comments seem more like a case of soor plooms than a genuine grievance about the SNP. He should have ensured his party were satisfied with their position in the campaign prior to standing on a platform with Alex Salmond.
Patrick Harvie is a popular and eloquent politician. Achieving such a headline in the Daily Record will do him and his party little good. Time to drop the whinging Patrick and, if the SNP won't show you the reverence you feel you deserve, then you're perfectly capable of presenting your case for independence without Alex Salmond holding your hand.
Achieving independence for Scotland is much more important than the position of a few politicians. Margo MacDonald, who sent a message of support to the campaign, suggests that the issues upsetting Partrick Harvie have been caused by poor planning. She may be right, but it was Patrick Harvie's responsibility to find out the details of his party's role in Yes Scotland before he appeared as one of the cheerleaders at the launch.
Picture by Ian Rutherford.
Thursday, 24 May 2012
"Yes Scotland"
In response to yesterday's post, @tartangladbach sent the above graphic via Twitter.
My thought was that the mysterious source's workbase was No 10 although I could be wrong.
Tomorrow the 'Yes to independence' campaign will be launched. The SNP are anxious to ensure "Yes Scotland" is more than the SNP and involves others who believe independence is the country's future. As I said in an earlier post the timing of the campaign is wrong. We have just had the local council elections and people have had enough politics for the time being. Why launch a campaign when the majority of folk are thinking of summer holidays?
It appears a few of the official party-goers aren't too happy with the campaign's direction. Patrick Harvie thinks the efforts to woo centre-ground voters could alienate many on the left, while the leader of the SSP Colin Fox, insists an independent Scotland should be a republic.
An event which should be upbeat and showcasing Scotland at its best may turn out to be a bit of a damp squib, however if the forecast proves correct, the sunshine could be what makes it an occasion to remember.
source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
