Unionist Shenanigans
Follow
Find tag "borders"
2.0K views | +0 today
Unionist Shenanigans
Untruths, deceits, bias & dirty tricks by Unionists to undermine serious debate about independence for Scotland.
Curated by Jim Arnott
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Jim Arnott from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Scottish independence: Young will reject split - Davidson

Scottish independence: Young will reject split - Davidson | Unionist Shenanigans | Scoop.it
THE Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has said she believes that younger Scots will vote to reject independence because of the “interconnected world” they inhabit.

Via Peter A Bell
Jim Arnott's insight:

Ruth Davidson, in my opinion, is delusional and blinkered. Read the excoriating assessment of her views in Peter Bell's insight.

 

Vote Yes in the 2014 Referendum on independence for Scotland

more...
Peter A Bell's curator insight, August 31, 2013 4:55 AM

Among the spokespersons for Project Fear there is strong competition for who talks the most perfect nonsense. For my money, it has to be Ruth Davidson. She regularly offers the most glaring examples of what I have referred to as curtailed thinking. That is to say, thinking as far as the first anti-independence (or anti-SNP) sound-bite, and then switching off the thinking process altogether.

Take the drivel about a "new border", for example. An individual not afflicted by curtailed thinking would, upon hearing this phrase in their own head, ask themselves the gob-smackingly obvious question, "What new border?". And, being unable to specify precisely what this "new border" might be, they would reflect critically on their choice of words and the ideas that they lay behind them.

Ms Davidson eschews any such considered reflection. The phrase, "drawing a new border" fits nicely with the propaganda line being peddled by Project Fear, so that's good enough for her.

More thoughtful people - which means just about anybody - will immediately realise that independence for Scotland does not imply any "new border". The border already exists. Has done for hundreds of years. It's how you know you're in Scotland and not England - or vice versa. It's how you know you're in one jurisdiction and not the other. Which, for reasons that perhaps only Ms Davidson would need explained, is quite important.

The border exists. And, as unionists themselves are happy to point out when it suits them, this border and the difference in jurisdictions have been no impediment to trading and other relationships. Why this would suddenly change in the event of independence Ms Davidson signally fails to explain. Although she did suggest one possible reason in another of her ill-thought utterances recently when she hinted at rUK adopting some kind of trade sanctions against Scotland. Certainly, she offered no other explanation as to why trade should be disrupted in any way by an ending of the political union between Scotland and England. After all, this does no more than place Scotland on a similar foot as every other nation that rUK trades with.

Then there's the nonsense about the "tide of history". Once again, Ruth Davidson has seized on the sound-bite without considering the implications. She knows that there is a tide, but mindlessly assumes that it's flow is such as to support her argument. In fact, as any moderately well-informed school-child will know, the tide has for many decades now been flowing in the direction of an increasing number of independent nations with ever more cooperation among them trough various forms of union or association - the EU being a prime example. The tide of history very strongly favours the independence argument. But Ruth Davidson simply disregards that reality and creates a new reality which is more convenient for her purposes.

Were her thinking not so tragically curtailed, Ms Davidson might see that it is not independence that is contrary to the norms of the modern world. It is Scotland's constitutional status within the UK that is anomalous. While citing global trends in relationships between and among nations, Ms Davidson is completely unable to offer any justification for her insistence that Scotland should remain an exception. If she truly wants Scotland to go with the tide, then she is on the wrong side of the debate.

Charles Patrick O'Brien's comment, August 31, 2013 8:57 AM
Good thoughtful article,I think Ruth Davidson is only there to take the fall.History is made when changes happen never has there been "history made" by standing still/status quo,history is made by the bold thinking,which she lacks in bucket loads.How can there be a barrier when the EU is all about taking them away? a border well similar we are just having geographical borders and no patrols to stop us from trading.There was a great point she made about how we export our financial services south east north and west and it brings in £9.billion,that is a positive for YES.She gives more reasons for YES than even some of the SNP.
Charles Patrick O'Brien's comment, September 1, 2013 5:34 AM
Excellent piece with great observations.
Rescooped by Jim Arnott from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

The No Campaign borders on hypocrisy

The No Campaign borders on hypocrisy | Unionist Shenanigans | Scoop.it
A couple of years ago, I had a client based in Eupen in Belgium. The best way to visit them was to fly to Dusseldorf before being picked up and driven to Belgium. I asked the driver "when will we cross the border?

Via Peter A Bell
more...
No comment yet.