Why do Ruth and Kez have to go to London to make anti-indy speeches? @GeorgePirie5
The SNP’s Holyrood opposition say that Nicola Sturgeon must rule out a second referendum and “focus on her day job”. However, they have a habit of saying this from the strangest locations. Ruth Davidson, for example, is MSP for Edinburgh Central, yet recently found herself making this demand from the middle of London. Similarly, Kezia Dugdale often encourages Sturgeon to “stick to the task at hand”, but only a few months ago, she spent a week in America “aiding” Hillary Clinton’s election campaign. Moreover, Ruth has made headlines by expressing a desire to appear on Strictly Come Dancing. How that equates to her focusing on her own day job is anybody’s guess!
Davidson can bash the SNP’s nationalism all she wants, but it doesn’t count for much when she’s doing it atop a tank, flying the Union Jack and championing a party who wish to fire immigrants back across the Channel. How anyone could remain a proud member of the Tories after they voted to ignore children fleeing war zones is beyond me. Ruth might paint herself as some heroic savior of the Union, but all I’m seeing is a double-dealer. After all, in 2014, she told us that “No means in” – as in a vote for the UK was a vote to stay in the EU. Yet the opposite has happened. We are now being told by EU representatives there would be zero barriers to an independent Scotland gaining membership of the EU, while the 2014 No vote, and subsequent Brexit, have dragged our country out of the EU against its will.
Loading article content
Dugdale has stated that the UK is Scotland’s more important union, but it’s the one that’s lied to us, and it’s now trying to scrap the Human Rights Act and deport foreign doctors. If you ask me, the EU is a much safer bet. Everything we warned you would happen if Scotland voted No has occurred, while almost none of Better Together’s promises have.
If the UK made any sense, support for it would have risen over the last six years. It hasn’t. In fact, support for Scottish independence is surging towards a majority vote before the indyref2 campaign has even begun. Davidson and Dugdale are trying to stir the Unionist pot, but we’ve already cooked and served the independence meal.
What’s your thoughts on the bookies putting a Yes decision in the next referendum at 2/5?
Anyone who has ever written out a bookie’s line will tell you that you can’t trust the odds. Whether it’s a horse, a football team or a vote on your nation’s future, one must decide whether to trust the form, the head or lady luck. But it’s seldom – if ever – a good idea to gamble with the heart.
My real-life doppelganger, Alex Salmond, is a much more seasoned gambler than I, and as such may disagree with me, but I’d warn all supporters of Scottish independence not to put their money on the table until they’ve played their part to ensure that Scottish independence is a sure thing. This will involve talking to people, campaigning heartily and generally spreading the positivity and excitement that builds towards the orgasm of independence.
I’m not at all surprised that Yes is the bookie’s favourite to win – but beware. With no confirmed referendum date, these odds will be forecast based on projected timings and are likely to change (for better or worse) once a date has been set. Favourite backers and ante-post punters may see opportunity in this price, but it would be wise to seek assurance over the legitimacy of the bet before parlaying it with Thistlecrack at Cheltenham.
An opportunistic bettor might look at Scottish independence at odds-on and see an opportunity: if I can work towards making independence a reality – and punt on it – then there’s money to be made. However, I’d once again caution high-staking independence supporters to refrain from viewing Scotland’s future in purely financial terms.
Your views on Yes social media? Any suggestions you might have?
I love social media. I owe so much to it. In terms of Yes, I’ve noticed that there’s been a real push to cleanup “the movement”, as it’s now often referred to, online. However, I find this idea baffling. Firstly, I do not represent a “movement”. I represent me. I am an individual who happens to support an independent Scotland. That doesn’t mean I speak for everyone who shares that belief. Moreover, most of the people I’m drawn towards on social media are the same. They’re not party affiliated, and simply express their desire for Scottish independence in their own unique style. I don’t think that these people should be made to feel like outcasts for expressing their own feelings.
You can’t tell everyone who likes sunshine not to swear at the rain. It’s the same with Yes voters – it’s a broad church, and some are going to be nicer than others. Certainly, the idea that we can somehow get thousands upon thousands of people to agree on what’s appropriate online behavior is preposterous.
I think what can be achieved is dealing with members of political parties, or even actual politicians, tweeting their minds in abusive ways. These people reflect badly on their chosen team, and that team can do something about it. The “movement” might be beyond control, but if a party member does something out of line, then the party can act. For example, if you have an SNP logo in your avatar, and you start advocating killing people, that’s gonna make the SNP look bad – and they will do something about it. Whereas, if your picture is just of you, and you advocate the same thing, only you look bad – and everybody will likely mock you for being an idiot. If you’re going to be controversial, be an individual.
If you want to represent a party, a charity, or crowdfund a blog praising a particular kind of Yes voter, then do what’s right for your team – be nice, or be gone.