As the Guardian has reported:
Jackson Carlaw has resigned suddenly as the Scottish Conservative leader, claiming he is not the right person to lead his party into the forthcoming Holyrood elections.
Hours after a combative session at first minister's questions, Carlaw issued a statement saying he had reached the “simple if painful conclusion” over the past few weeks that the Scottish Conservatives needed a new and better leader.
By this morning this does not even make headline news in the Guardian's Scotland section, which is saying something, but I think there is a significance to this that could be overlooked.
It's hard not to relate this to four recent stories.
The first is Johnson's recent, panicked, visit to Scotland. He has seen now how bad things are for Unionists in Scotland.
The second is, then, the relentless rise of the Independence movement in Scotland.
The third is Johnson's own poor performance when compared to Nicola Sturgeon on coronavirus.
And fourth, there is the sheer hypocrisy of Johnson's approach when appealing for Union in Scotland whilst opposing it as irrational with the EU using the mirror image of the arguments in each case.
My suspicion is that Carlaw did not go. I am sure he was pushed. And that Johnson did the pushing. There is, though, a problem for Johnson, and that is that the possible replacements for a person selected only a few months ago are even worse.
Try as he might, Johnson can not avoid the fact that Tory reaction to two referenda has killed the Union. The first was the 2014 independence referendum. Cameron chose to rub Scottish noses in his victory the morning after winning. It has not been forgotten.
And then there was Brexit when every promise Unionists made in 2014 was broken by the Leave campaign. That too has not been forgotten.
Add in Johnson's incompetence and the mix is potent.
Johnson clearly thinks he can control this with a new leader. He is very wrong. He is the problem now. Unless he proposes to do a Trump and ignore democratic mandates (and he might, but with unknowable consequences) he will have to face a seemingly unstoppable demand for independence next year.
And the fact that awareness of modern money, which liberates the ability to meet demand for reform with government action, and awareness that so-called national debt is not a burden are both growing, helps this change.
Johnson is scared. That's why Carlaw has gone. But Johnson has no answers. And Scotland is waiting, but not for long. When the Tories are beginning to indicate that they know the Union is dead change is really in the air.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The only tool left for the UK Government to save the “Union” is now a fairly blunt instrument.
Stripping of powers from the devolved governments and tying up control of funding to them.
This could massively backfire with even people in England seeing this as unfair and will feed into nationalist agendas.
The domino effect could see demands for parts of England to seek regional powers.
The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the failures of the central Westminster government to look after the people of the UK.
Yep.
If Scotland goes, I’d be very interested in a similar movement for the north of England
Stripping Holyrood of powers is exactly what they propose with the White Paper on the Uk Internal Market. Michael Russell has been issuing warnings about this as has Patrick Harvie of the Greens: https://greens.scot/blog/the-uk-tories-want-a-veto-over-scottish-democracy-we-must-resist ; https://www.thenational.scot/news/18618238.michael-russell-says-scotland-will-fight-tory-power-grab/
But with their majority in Westminster they can railroad it through. The Tories have never liked devolution, with their allegiance to the idea of Sovereignty residing in the Westminster Parliament and therefore, effectively, with whichever party happens to be in power. Now they have their chance to eviscerate the three devolved administrations and turn them into the “pretendy wee parliaments” that was always intended.
I think it’ll backfire.
And Westminster politicians will have no one to blame but themselves, if the “colonies” decide to leave, for doing nothing to fix the absurd so-called UK “constitution”, doing nothing about the anti-democratic voting system, doing nothing about giving more autonomy to English Regions and doing nothing to move on from the bankrupt nostalgia of Empire, Great War Victories and “punching above our weight” as a “world power”.
It will only backfire if people know about it!
We need MSP & MPs to state where the Scot Gov power starts & ends!
“the Scottish Conservatives needed a new and better leader”…….better able to polish the turd that is Tory policy with respect to the Uk in general and Scotland in particular.
The fatberg thinks he just needs somebody better able to …what? Blather & bullshit like he does in front of a supine & adoring London-based media?.
I think we can all see the flaws in this. Fatso is on the Titanic, he is re-arranging the deck chairs every more frantically, & to no purpose whatsoever. The Union is finished – the only uncertainties relate to the modalities with respect to its termination – & that is where things will get nasty. By 2030, I see a scottish republic.
You can’t think of a better way to attack him than with insults about his appearance? It’s not like you don’t have a lot of better ammunition.
I have zero respect for the current Pime Mincer, me & perhaps more than 50% of the Uk population. He is not worthy of being referred to either by his 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th…. etc names. So yeah, Fatberg, Fatso, tub-of-lard & so on & so forth. Respect is something that is earned. Fatso started unearning respect in the late 1980s/1990s when knowlingly generating lies about EU legislation for the Torygraph – he has lied ever since. Coco-the-clown in Dowinging street.!!
There’s fear enough to go around. As a scot who came round to independence about fifteen years ago, it seems the case for The Union has depended on government’s ability to lie freely to voters – which causes me no small fears for Independence. Conventional media appear unwilling or unable to challenge the lies, indeed, are quite happy to enable the sophistry and evasions keeping Unionist fictions afloat. Essentially they’re Unionist media, just another poison in the well of national discourse.
Offhand, I cannot think of a single Union promise made during the 2014 referendum that has been kept. Not one. On top of that, even things threatened as a consequence of independence have happened anyway. What could be offered second time around?
Never mind Prime Minister Johnson, where Unionists might go from here worries me.
We got to keep the pound. Ironically, the run on the pound will be the final nail in the coffin.
This is all part of the great Federal Europe plan – divide the nations into regions. Well done Boris; I knew you were a Europhile at heart.
The function of the “central Westminster government” is not to “look after the people of the UK” but to rule them.
Hmmmm.
At the end of the day, I understand that a select committee (as a result of BREXIT) told parliament that the British electoral system was totally unprepared /fundamentally weak in the face of fake news and criminal data mining.
What exactly has been done about that?
Nothing that I can see. It can all happen again – even in Scotland. It’s worth considering this you know.
‘,,,even in scotland’
Pilgrim, in Scotland we don’t really mind fake news that much, it’s the foaming at the mouth anti-Scottish news that is broadcast into our homes every day all day, and endless news headlines designed to keep us in our place, ‘back in our box’, if you like, that bothers us. Fake news is a bit of fun really, a challenge to spot but, true, can lead some astray.
During purdah in the 2014 referendum, the main uk political parties produced a hogwash ‘vow’ and one of our newspapers – the daily record – published it. Both those actions were unlawful under electoral law, but they were never brought to task, and it wasn’t mentioned again, and it did have a profound effect on the result. The then editor of the a Daily Record has now ‘changed his view of independence’ and has been employed by the SNP to counter propaganda for them. Make of that what you will.
There are some of us in Scotland that may be cynical about the entire and all electoral processes in the uk. But it ain’t the hidden actors that are the biggest problem here, just yet another one.
‘Fake news is a bit of fun really, a challenge to spot but, true, can lead some astray’.
Phew! How dangerously blasé!!?
I wouldn’t underestimate fake news if I were you sunny Jim. Carole Cadwaladr doesn’t. Sarah Kendzior doesn’t (read ‘Hiding in Plain Sight: The Invention of Donald Trump & the Erosion of America, 2020). Shoshana Zuboff doesn’t. Mind you, they’re all women and like Kelton all kicking against a world formulated badly by men.
How’s this – Hitler in Mein Kampf – quoted by Kendzior concerning ‘the Big Lie’ (p.170):
“In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility , because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily”.
What’s this – Scottish exceptionalism Contrary!?
Are you saying that the Scots are less likely to fall for big lies? That you’re all too ‘canny’ to be manipulated?
Go on Netflix – look at the documentary on Roger Stone. Watch the documentary ‘The Great Hack’.
Think again. And remember: nothing has changed since BREXIT in terms of election practice.
Nothing. Zilch. Zero.
There is only going to be one way that the Scottish Tory party will survive and that will be to drop the Unionist part from their name and divorce themselves from their masters in London. I am not a Tory and never have been, but I accept that there are those who are and always will be and that difference of opinion can only be a good thing in an independent Scotland.
The Labour accounting unit in Scotland will have to do pretty much the same thing if they want to have any relevance in the future.
However to have any part in Scotlands future they must stop denying the people of Scotland democracy, it is for the people to decide if they want to determine their own future, not the City of London.
None so blind as they say as those who believe their own lies. This makes the Tories completely unaware they are working their way towards becoming an anachronism.
As a Scot I can remember the days when the Scottish Tories were gentleman like Alec Douglas Home, George Younger, Alick Buchanan-Smith – politicians of integrity. Perhaps we Scots can see better through the posh Eton and Oxford persona exemplified by liar Johnson than many English people so it is not surprising that independence looks attractive.
Another reason Carlaw is going is that he gets routed regularly by Sturgeon in debates and FMQs: a man demonstrably out of his depth. It’s widely seen here that he was pushed, but the BBC Scotland Political Editor, Brian Taylor, stated that he had been briefed by Scottish Tory insiders that Carlaw’s departure resulted from concern in the party that he was not up to the job, coupled with some self-awareness on Carlaw’s part that this was so. However, in this post-truth era, it’s hard to be sure whether Boris had a hand in it or not. I suspect he did, but in the usual Tory smoke-and-mirrors tactics, it’s being portrayed as an internal decision made by unnamed people, with accolades to the victim for sterling service, now move on, there’s nothing to see.
The question of a successor will be interesting as the Tory talent pool in Scotland is already drained. The only name circulating here so far is Douglas Ross MP for Moray, but that raises issues of him being in two places at once, and to resolve that might involve him having to contest a Holyrood seat in the 2021 Election and relinquish his Westminster seat, thereby causing a by-election in Moray. Given the current political climate in Scotland, that might prove disastrous for the Tories and him and the alternative of pretending to sit in both Parliaments raises issues of practicality as well the obvious neglect of voters’ interests. As poisoned chalices go, this one looks a corker!
As a P.S. to my post on 31 July at 12.26pm, reports from well-connected Tory insiders are now suggesting that, as widely suspected, Jackson Carlaw’s resignation from the post of Head Tory (Scotland) came as a result of pressure by the Johnson-Cummings team in No10. In other words the classic Tory assassination disguised as a resignation. It was hard before to make a case for the Tory stance on Scotland to be democratic, given the forced Brexit, the grabbing of devolved powers etc, but, the Carlaw case makes it harder for them to claim they represent any form of democracy with regard to Scotland.
Carlaw was elected to the role of Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party by its members, but is now being removed from it by the Westminster “de facto PM and his bumbling front man” and replaced by their nomination of a successor. There has been no suggestion of a ballot to determine a successor, so no pretense of democratic process.
Spot on
I worry for England. Where will it go politically, economically and, culturally without the Scots?
Heading south?
In truth I don’t think the English consensus cares too much about the Union. If Scotland wants to leave I honestly believe there is little resistance at a public level. Political rhetoric might be different but again I doubt most Tories are bothered.
I think most are keen
I encounter hostility to Scotland, often
I’m guessing but my feeling is that those in power in London think they can still narrowly win an independence referendum in Scotland.
However, those in power in London would under no circumstances put a Scottish independence referendum to the entire UK voting public, because the result would be England voting for Scotland to go. I say England only because the extreme population disparity could negate whatever result Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland return.
Which brings me on to the subject of devolved powers and whether WM will return some to London. I don’t understand why English Votes for English Laws isn’t a more prominent subject. For me EVEL is enough to make anyone in Scotland want independence. England alone gets laws passed only by English MP’s that cannot be overruled by any other Parliament.
Devolved powers aren’t like that.
Agreed
I see it as Richard sees it – anti-Scottish sentiment is alive and kicking here in England. I think it is totally unjustifiable in supposedly modern times and perplexing. More than anything else it’s bloody dangerous.
It’s divide and conquer all of he time. I’m sick of living in such a manipulated society.
This will be a two pronged attack,”Baroness Davidson in the Scotland office and Dougie Ross by way of the list vote will spearhead the union vote.As the tories have such a majority in Westminster he will not be missed that is why he has been chosen in fact all of the other diddies could be sent back home as for all they do.
In terms of hypocrisy, you might want to look a bit closer to home – compare your views on independence for Scotland with the UK wanting to leave the EU!!!
I am completely consistent
I would hope Scotland would rejoin the EU
Mz Bartholemew,
There are of course many Scots who have just wanted Scotland to leave the Union, come what may; the key change that is pushing a real majority of the Scottish population more forcefully toward independence, is Brexit. The Scots prefer to choose their own alliances in the world. The first undertaken by Scotland was the the Auld Alliance (la Vieille Alliance) with France in 1295. The 1603 dynastic alliance with England was the choice of the Scottish kings; the Stuarts (as a result one lost his head, and another his crown – including that of Scotland, so perhaps that did not go too well for the dynasty after all ….), followed by the rather close 1707 parliamentary alliance with England, which was not popular with the ordinary people of Scotland at the time, and is losing popularity rather quickly now; especially as both Brexit and the pandemic have revealed dramatically a disturbing insight into the nature of power in the British State, that had not been adequately understood by most people in Scotland. They ‘ken noo’ as they say on the East coast. In spite of devolution the centralising tendency of the British State has been allowed to progress far too far; and the modern, functioning adminstration of the British state has demonstrated only the archaic, sclerotic, dysfunctional nature of British Government from Westminster.
I understand that England is insular and does not like such arrangements as foreign ‘alliances’ (save with Scotland;1603 (really?), and 1707, the exception which only proves that if realpolitik demands, they do like alliances; only they do not understand what they mean). That is up to England. If you do not understand our preferences in Scotland so be it. We do things differently there.
Nothing is forever. Do not presume to choose our preferences, our standards, our values in Scotland. The parting of the ways has probably arrived. If you do not understand it, do not like it, and cannot accommodate Scotland possessing these different expectations, we really should each go our own way. The Scots like a close relationship with Europe. We always have done, and after a thousand years of negotiating alliances, for better, and sometimes for worse, no doubt we will always at least try to do them: vive l’Écosse européenne.
There, that wasn’t so difficult; was it …….?
You misunderstand the meaning of hypocricy. It’s not hypocritical to say that one union should end and another persist, because it depends entirely upon the underlying reasons. If I say to myself that I should eat more vegetables and less cake, does that make me hypocritical with regards to food? I think not. I think you’re right with regards to slogans like “better together” and “vote leave”, because “better together” is making a bold, universal claim (and shows the problem with slogans), so believing in “better together” and then voting leave, would be hypocritical. Political campaigns destroy good quality discussion and debate, and are unworthy of any electorate.
It says everything about Johnson’s conceit and total lack of self awareness, that he could think that his visit to Scotland would improve prospects for the union. Given 3 1/2 more years of his government I can only see this going one way. The current generation of Tories only care about retaining Scotland in the way that they cared about retaining one of the colonies.
I shall be very sad to see the UK break up and I’m not a fan of nationalism in any form but I full understand why so many Scots feel that way and why it is now probably the right direction for Scotland. Fortunately Im entitled to a Scottish passport
“Johnson clearly thinks he can control this with a new leader. He is very wrong. He is the problem now. Unless he proposes to do a Trump and ignore democratic mandates (and he might, but with unknowable consequences) he will have to face a seemingly unstoppable demand for independence next year.”
So why wouldn’t Johnson just continue to ignore (or challenge the legitimacy of) democratic mandates? I’m genuinely surprised at the idea suggested here that he might do the right democratic thing.
The tortes in Scotland are not going to enjoy the worldwide scrutiny right now. It is a nest of self serving vipers, devoid of principles and talent. Boris has decided that Douglas Ross (Dross) is the best they’ve got. This is the guy who missed a WM vote because he was refereeing, or running the line for,a champions league match at the time. He’s already recognised as a shit referee.
Nicola will have no trouble with him.
My view upon this is less scientific and more emotional really.
Ruth Davidson was fairly popular was she not and she was a Tory?
Was it because she was a lesbian?
Was it because she actually seemed like a nice, relatable ‘real’ person (I’d liked to have met her myself despite her odious Conservatism and I would less inclined to swing for her than say George Osbourne or Michael Gove)?
Was it because she was a woman?
Or is it a mixture of all of these factors?
The thing is folks, all you need is the right sort of person (or shall we say in this case, the ‘wrong’ sort of person) and you will have a more popular Tory party in Scotland as a result.
C’mon now – what do you think politics actually is?
Don’t let your guard down and do not become complacent is all I can say.
Ah, PSR, you made me smile – ‘Ruth Davidson was fairly popular was she not,,,’
The media here made her LOOK popular – that is the power of the media. They would never challenge her or question her in interviews, and were happy to promote any kind of positive publicity shot for her.
I have no idea what anyone’s sexuality has to do with their popularity, that is a very strange thing to bring up.
She isn’t ‘nice’, she’s a Tory.
Contrary
What I’m hinting at (oh come on Contrary DO keep up) is the politics of identity and how they can be thrown into the equation even by extremely nasty traditional parties like the Tories in search of a vote (I hope that you are paying attention: I share your antipathy to the Tory creed).
Remember dodgy David Cameron and his hug a hoody moment; his dog sleigh ride at one of our polar regions that led to his ‘environmental epiphany’? All very voter friendly don’t you think? And all quickly forgotten about when power was obtained.
BTW – I saw more of Davidson on national TV than the last incumbent. What also matters therefore is if the media see the politician as viable too. They are more likely to treat you seriously – look at poor old Corbyn in comparison. And that portrayal is bound to affect some voters isn’t it?
All I’m saying is that you only need the right ‘wrong’ politician and things can change rapidly. They’re a fickle lot voters – especially at times like this with so much fear and uncertainty and the internet means to exploit it.
And you Contrary, the wily, all seeing, all knowing, ‘there’s no flies on me even if you can see where they’ve been’ Contrary – well surely you know all of this don’t you? Don’t you?
A letter to one of the Scottish press:
“Ruth Davison made a Dame just in time for the pantomime season”
Nope, I had no idea what you were talking about PSR, many of your posts relating to politics and Scotland I can barely understand but seem to imply that we don’t know about underhand goings-on, I’m just passing on what is common knowledge and saying it’s what we live with every day – there is nothing wily about it or special in any way and its just for your information – you can decide if it’s true or not. But yes I accept you mean they use whatever they can to put a supposedly friendly face forward, now that you’ve explained.
On Ruth Davidson – of ‘put the boot in’ fame – it looks like she’s got her peerage and she’s got her nice little earner in the HoL – no doubt you’ll be seeing a lot more of her – good luck.
Ruth Davidson is a populist, anti-intellectual politician of that notably crude kind that is persuasive with the narrow, and narrowing, shrinking Conservative constituency in Scotland. She was a journeyman journalist in BBC Scotland, and therefore she was media aware, and she appealed particularly to the gerontocratic, Thatcherite Scottish Conservative party members who are the fast ageing core of the party. People who were so desperate and frightened of the future they embraced someone as leader, they thought was ‘modern’, a communicator; but whom I doubt they understood, and with whom they had nothing in common. Notice that when she resigned, the undercurrent of response within Scottish Conservatism at member level, was indifference. Here today, gone tomorrow.
That was the upside for Conservatism. I have never thought that Davidson’s ‘success’ in Scotland was much more than the success of mainstream media propaganda, which is inevitably, first going to support Scottish Conservatism overwhelmingly, and would ‘spin’ her youthful endeavour; and second, because the Conservatives gained from her particular inside knowledge and understanding of the methods of media propaganda, which she used to her advantage. She received a ‘free ride’, virtually across the board. On the very, very rare occasion she was forensically cross-examined (I recall one interview, I think on STV), she quickly collapsed into incoherence like a burst balloon. Her understanding of issues is glibly superficial. Part of the method she uses is simply the party-trick of media management; delivering the sound-bite, while evading proper scrutiny. It is her one talent. This is conventional. You will never, ever see a Boris Johnson minister being scrutinised on C4 News, or BBC Newsnight, if they can help it. There is never anyone “available”. Set-piece television debates are different; but here, you will notice, if the argument ever moves from sound-bite to substance, Ruth Davidson’s trick is to talk quicker and louder, and across everyone else. I admit she also has the distinct advantage of a piercing foghorn delivery. This is her technique.
The media was only one side of Davidson’s apparent but wholly misleading supposed ‘success’, which succeeded only in deluding the Scottish Conservatives into believing they were recovering support. They are slowly dying as a Party; a natural and inevitable function of their demographics, while among younger Conservatives the Scottish Party is shrinking into a more extreme, hysterical, one policy party. All they have is an attack on Scottish independence. They have nothing else to offer whatsoever. If they did not have the SNP they would need to invent it.
Davidson also benefited from the flat morale of the independence movement immediately post-2014 referendum (a longish lull, but not a fall), and above all from the complete, shambolic collapse of the Labour Party in Scotland, into total political irrelevance. Finally, with Brexit (which Davidson did not believe in), she was able to pull much of the leave vote together under the Conservative banner, in spite of her own position. This was only because it had nowhere else to go.
The confusions, paradoxes and inconsistencies that are the muddled substance of Ruth Davidson’s politics (try watching what she actually said about both Brexit and Boris Johnson over the last few years), do not matter to Scottish Conservativism. Davidson is all the living-fossil anachronism that is both Conservatism and the Scottish Conservatives, have to cling on to. With Douglas Ross they will have just turned to a louder and even more belligerent foghorn; a man who seems to have confused the role of the politician with the role of a referee. Look for lots of ‘red cards’ being issued to all and sundry, to please the Party members.
In the Tory Party of old Davidson would have been an also ran
But in a failing party, with as you say, a failed Labour Party, Davidson grabbed her chance
She did not take it
But then, not has anyone else in the Tories
As you say, this is a Party of noise but absolutely no substance
Thank you John S for those insights on Davidson.
As I said, she was portrayed by the media as the future of the Tory party – to me at least.
Ruth Davidson was popular with Scottish Tories and the UK MSM simply because she was a female Tory and they still revere the Thatcher image of a strong woman. The frequency of her photo-ops kept her on the front pages, but her performance as a politician was at best light-weight.
Her attempts to unsettle Nicola Sturgeon in Holyrood debate frequently failed, usually to due to the use of “facts” which were often easily disproved. In terms of political policy, she had none besides attempting to prevent independence, so little perceptible interest in things that matter for the voting public. As an MSP she was notable for the lack of constituents’ surgeries, so the overall impression (unless you were a besotted Tory) was of a self-obsessed and vapid, but shouty individual. Quite how she’ll make a telling contribution in the Lords is unclear, but the lords is full of people who make little or no contribution and are there largely to fill their pockets and act as voting fodder.
Richard, in an interesting turn of events on my ‘home blog’ (maybe ex now I’ve argued with the blog owner!) – the blog owner invited a unionist to give her case for the union as a compensation and apology for publishing something incorrect about her. She chose to give her case in the form of an economical argument – I will post a link to this because this is the classical argument that we are presented with (it is still stuck in 2014, but adds a bit of Covid-19 and Sunak, into the mix – and how an independent Scotland couldn’t do what Sunak has done,,,, 😀 I would hope not!!)
https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2020/08/01/has-covid-19-ended-the-snp-dream-of-independence/
All the comments answering her, those referring to the economical arguments anyway, reference many of your articles and videos – whether Jane Lax reads or watches any is debatable, but it is good to have the opportunity to debate the issue again – and to have the resources you have produced for us so we can move forward with the debate. The actual opinion piece is of course a morass of different types of argument and contrary evidence packaged up into one, confusing every issue going. Not easy to pick apart. I believe it’s very important that people’s fears are addressed, and that we know what they are: and most of them are still about the economy – unfortunately most of the pro-independence community are still quite reluctant to see the importance (for convincing others AND for making independence a reality) of new economical thinking. We’ll get there though. A revolution! In thinking.
Thanks
Hmm, regarding my last comment and link, it appears that Jane Lax has already formed her opinion of you
https://twitter.com/Janela_X/status/1289528919260094464
So it is unlikely she will look at most our evidence I think, oh well. Worth a try. There seems so little point in trying to engage when you are met with closed minds though eh?
I was never sure what they thought I got so wrong that day
But several times when even professional tv producers have told me I have done really good interviews I am told I had a car crash by opponents
I suspect they hear what they want to…..
If you watch the clip carefully, it has cuts in it – in fact some are obvious. They do this all the time to present ‘evidence’. Doctored evidence! She posted it on the blog too so I got the opportunity to suggest she improve her editing before claiming it as evidence. Bunch of shysters, they really are. Fake news? It’s well and truly alive. And interesting that that has been her only rebuttal – to argue against the person, not the substance, and she picked on you because she must have the prepared video ready. She doesnt know anything about economics so her only recourse is to try and put doubt in people’s head – through whatever means – of someone’s credibility. A common tactic too. Shysters.
They aren’t keen in people that upset the cart and tell us something different from the mince the establishment tells us.
Agreed….
Well, this was my favourite quote from your video on debt and an independent Scotland too – now made into a printable poster 🙂
https://twitter.com/Zarkwan/status/1289533195822587904
Where did it go?
😀
I can’t afford all that ink!
Now,,, if it was a picture of Danny Dorling, maybe,,,
😉
If it was from Colin then the poster will be on his website at: http://www.indyposterboy.scot the go to place for indy folk.
Very good! One being used now
Sorry, I didn’t realise the link didn’t work – I have trouble with Twitter on this device, good you found it, and thanks to LollysMum for the link. I might get a few leaflets printed, they’re quite handy to have at the ready.
Well the clue is Contrary to read and not jump to conclusions (and I will admit to having done that myself too here on occasion so I speak from a point of view of self critical awareness) but now we’ve sorted all that out (I think) may I wish you and your homeland all the best in its bid to become an independent nation and one that is hopefully managed a lot better than that lot on the other side of Hadrian’s Wall – God help us.
But seriously – I’ve been reading Zuboff’s ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’ (2019) and although she gets a bit carried away in places (to the point where you really have to chew over her words – she gets far too technical) she talks of a concept of ‘radical indifference’ seen in people’s behaviour with content on the internet.
As I under stand this concept, it is related to alternative fact tactics that come from the Alt-Right. When presenting these online to people, they are in response to factual data on a situation from the other side and are presented as an ‘equivalent’ response to a what might be a valid statement. However, they are usually without context and not really equivalent. But the other thing is that they happen so fast, that all they do is fulfil a surface need to provide an immediate riposte or answer that seems credible but in actual fact sows indifference to the issue instead. So the equivalent response is one without equality because it will fail to take into full account context etc.
So, to try to illustrate this, let’s say the SNP might issue a statement about the amount of oil revenue that went to the English Treasury (or where ever) over the years; a ‘radically indifferent response’ from this Government would be something along the lines of how much support grant the Scots region gets from the British Government but that how that is spent is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. So reading that, might throw a voter off the scent of the problem, (it is the Scottish Government’s fault because of THEIR decisions, not HMG underfunding or lack of clarity about in flows and out flows of funds between England and Scotland is what is being suggested by the English).
On line or on a short TV interview, the voter can fall for this stuff very quickly – it lacks the analysis and discussion that you might find in a good newspaper – but an answer/riposte is quickly given and suffices even though it does not really explain the unequal terms of England’s rule of Scotland – the ‘equivalence without equality’ problem that Zuboff also nails in her book. And that is where the indifference comes from.
All I’m saying Contrary is that it is not just the Scottish who need to be aware of this: it’s voters in democracies EVERYWHERE.
Agreed.