I see John Curtice is still hoping for a more confident and convincing vision from the anti-independence campaign. I suppose we must applaud the good professors optimism - even if it is naive and misplaced. The harsh reality is that there is not the slightest possibility of a positive message from the No campaign. Quite apart from the fact that they have not managed to contrive such a message in two years, it simply isnt possible to imagine what form such a message would take. Had the British parties seized the opportunity to include a more powers option on the referendum ballot things would have been different. But they flatly rejected that offer, choosing instead to try and sell the status quo to the people of Scotland - despite the fact that even back then it was quite obvious that the status quo was totally unacceptable to the vast majority of people in Scotland. Of course, back then the unionists thought a No vote was certain. Weve moved a long way since then. But the anti-independence campaign cannot move because it has nowhere to go. The British parties in Scotland are now obliged to try and deceive the people of Scotland into believing that their rejection of a more powers option didnt actually happen. They brazenly lie about a No vote being a vote for more powers. One of the reasons that they refused to have a more powers options on the ballot was that they had no intention of delivering those powers. Another, which is particularly relevant with the publication of Johann Lamonts shambolic devolution proposals, is that every concession offered undermines the argument that the union is a satisfactory arrangement. The British parties face a painful dilemma in that the powers offered must be meaningful to have any hope of persuading people to vote No. But the more meaningful the offer is the more it prompts awkward questions. If this power, why not that power? If the union is as effective and beneficial as claimed, why the need to make significant changes? If devolution is a process, what is the next stage beyond what is being offered now? When do we reach that stage? At what point do the British parties admit the inadequacy of what they are offering now and come up with another offer? Why should we endure this interminable constitutional tinkering when we can put an end to it right now simply by voting Yes?
Posted on: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 13:39:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015