Unionist Shenanigans
2.1K views | +0 today
Follow
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!

Alex Salmond 'to spend extra £800,000 selling independence' - Telegraph

Alex Salmond 'to spend extra £800,000 selling independence' - Telegraph | Unionist Shenanigans | Scoop.it
Alex Salmond is planning to spend an extra £800,000 of taxpayers’ money trying to sell his blueprint for independence to the Scottish people, it was alleged last night.

Via Peter A Bell
more...
Peter A Bell's curator insight, October 31, 2013 8:46 AM

The real question here is whether the use of single quotes prevents the headline being a blatant lie. The truth is that the referendum budget has not been increased at all. Not by a single penny, far less £800,000. All that has happened here is that the Scottish Government has found some extra cash and decided, in the way that governments do, that the best way to spend that cash is informing the public about matters which concerns them.


But supposing this money was being spent on disseminating information about the referendum or related matters - so what!? The British nationalists are forever saying that the people of Scotland must be given more information before being asked to vote on a matter of unprecedented significance. Are they really so dumb as to suppose that this can be done at no cost?


What is the British government spending on anti-independence propaganda? How come we never hear the likes of Simon Johnson whining about that?

Rescooped by Jim Arnott from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Comment: Last week's Irish referendum should worry Alex Salmond

Comment: Last week's Irish referendum should worry Alex Salmond | Unionist Shenanigans | Scoop.it
Ireland's referendum on the Senate (an tSeanad) provides further evidence of how resistant voters are to change - whether it;s for Scottish independence of breaking away from the EU.

Via Peter A Bell
Jim Arnott's insight:

What a devastating critique of this errant nonsense. Well done again Peter Bell for your insight.

more...
Peter A Bell's curator insight, October 9, 2013 6:48 PM

Living in Scotland and actually taking an active interest in the referendum campaign I get to read a lot of ill-informed nonsense written by journalists who might as well be on another planet as on a different continent - for the simple reason that they are getting all their "information" from the all but totally pro-union British media.

For a start, Samuel Lawes seems totally unaware of the fact that Scotland's independence campaign is far wider than the SNP. The campaign to deny Scotland's rightful constitutional status has put a lot of effort into pretending that Yes Scotland doesn't exist. In this they have been aided and abetted by a compliant media who have eagerly colluded in trying to deceive the people of Scotland into thinking the referendum is all about Alex Salmond/SNP. That propaganda has clearly worked on Mr Lawes. It is not working on the people of Scotland.

Another thing that is a familiar carry-over from the British press is the idea of Salmond/SNP having been dealt some kind of (usually "devastating") blow or suffered a (frequently "fatal") setback. What prompts such speculation can be anything from an opinion poll to a spell of unseasonal weather. What they all have in common, however, is that there is never any discernible effect from any of these "devastating blows" or "fatal setbacks". Neither Salmond's exceptionally high satisfaction ratings, nor the remarkable popularity of the SNP administration are affected in any way.

This laboriously contrived connection with the Irish referendum falls neatly into the category of embarrassingly early obituaries.

These are not the only things that mark this article as nothing more than a crib from the likes of The Telegraph. In fact, the whole thing might have been written by Simon Johnson. The distortions and borderline dishonesty are totally in character. Mind you, that stuff about "the most biased question of any referendum ever held in the United Kingdom" might have embarrassed even Johnson. Perhaps because he is at least sufficiently informed to know that the "do you agree" format had been used before in the UK.

The accusations of anti-English rhetoric would be more familiar to Telegraph readers. If not from from Johnson's crooked pen then from the increasingly demented rambling of Alan Cochrane. Like them, Samuel Lawes offers not one scintilla of evidence in support of this calumny. For the very simple reason that none exists.

I have no reason to suppose that Mr Lawes is interested in facts, but Salmond is actually known as something of an Anglophile. There are SNP MSPs who are English. And it has been estimated that as much as 10% of the party's membership may identify as wholly or partly English. Anecdotally, some  of the most dedicated and active independence campaigners I know are English. I go to a lot of Yes Scotland events, and it is commonplace to meet numerous English people there.

In short, the "anti-English" thing is simply a lie. But that is perfectly in keeping with the tone of the article.

Rescooped by Jim Arnott from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Scottish independence: One in four will vote yes

Scottish independence: One in four will vote yes | Unionist Shenanigans | Scoop.it
SUPPORT for independence has slumped to its lowest level since the start of the referendum campaign, according to a new poll which also suggests a growing number of people say they do not know how to vote next year.

Via Peter A Bell
more...
Peter A Bell's curator insight, September 4, 2013 4:48 AM

Blair McDougall, hapless architect of the appalling Project Fear, refers to "independently commissioned polls". What does this mean? What counts as "independent"? If a poll commissioned by the SNP is not "independent" then how can it be claimed that polls commissioned by anti-independence groups like Devo Plus are "independent"? Or, for that matter, polls commissioned by newspapers which blatantly flaunt their anti-independence bias?

Unless Blair McDougall is impugning the integrity of the polling organisations themselves, it shouldn't make a jot of difference who orders and pays for the survey. So. is Blair McDougall accusing polling organisations of being unprofessional? Or is he just speaking without thinking as usual?

Jim Arnott's comment, September 4, 2013 5:46 AM
I can't remember any time Blair McDougall had a sensible thought.
Peter A Bell's comment, September 4, 2013 6:24 AM
If he did, it was never made public.
Rescooped by Jim Arnott from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Better Together's short-term campaign

Better Together's short-term campaign | Unionist Shenanigans | Scoop.it
Better Together are consumed by 'winning' the campaign on a week-by-week basis, writes CRAIG GALLAGHER, but a focus on negative campaigning could rot

Via Peter A Bell
Jim Arnott's insight:

Bettertogether - negative, negative, negative

 

YesScotland - positive, positive, positive

 

That's the difference

 

Vote Yes in the 2014 Referendum on independence for Scotland

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Jim Arnott from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Water cash 'wasted on vote propaganda'

Water cash 'wasted on vote propaganda' | Unionist Shenanigans | Scoop.it
THE Scottish Government has been accused of wasting money on referendum

Via Peter A Bell
Jim Arnott's insight:

Utter bunkum. 

more...
Peter A Bell's curator insight, October 31, 2013 5:35 AM

Magnus Gardham desperately trying to spin some anti-Scottish Government propaganda out of thin air. The whole story is that nothing has actually happened. The cost of the referendum remains unchanged.

David Briggs's comment, October 31, 2013 6:53 AM
Gardham believes that spending money on a Referendum is a waste. I imagine he must believe that all forms of democracy are a waste of money. Shaky ground Magnus?
Rescooped by Jim Arnott from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Scottish independence: Deadline to reveal next steps

Scottish independence: Deadline to reveal next steps | Unionist Shenanigans | Scoop.it
THE UK elections watchdog has recommended the Scottish and Westminster Governments set out what will happen after next year’s referendum by 20 December this year.

Via Peter A Bell
Jim Arnott's insight:

The NOsayers must give us a clue as to what Scotland would look like after Sept 2014. I am personally very afraid of the persecution of Scots should we vote no next year. There is only one way to avoid this and that is to:

 

Vote Yes in the 2014 Referendum on independence for Scotland.

more...
Peter A Bell's curator insight, September 25, 2013 4:25 AM

The Scottish Government has already published a wealth of material, all of which is readily available from the Scottish Government website.


For all the fuss the British parties made about the need for the Scottish Government to follow guidance set down by the Electoral Commission, it is they who have failed to clarify the implications of a No vote. On the one hand we have vague talk of further devolution, but nothing is ever defined and there is not even the possibility of a commitment to deliver.


On the other hand, we have unionist spokespersons openly talking of rolling back devolution in the event of a No vote. The talk is of removing powers from the Scottish Parliament or even abolishing it altogether. The wishes of the people of Scotland having ceased to be of any concern once they have voted to forfeit their only leverage.


We know what independence means. We have scores of other countries, comparable to Scotland in various ways and to varying degrees, which we can to look to for examples. What is notable about all of these countries is that the sky has not fallen on any of them as a consequence of their constitutional status. For all of them, independence is normal. Not one of them is seeking to give up that independence. If it was suggested to the people of any of these nations that they might vote to relinquish independence they would think the very notion quite insane.


We also know much of the detail of what the early days of independence will look like. It is not possible to know more because the future will be what the people of Scotland decide. But we know very clearly what the present administration intends as the starting point from which the people's project to build a better, fairer Scotland will begin.


Unionists claim that these plans will be catastrophic for Scotland despite the fact that the main criticism is that, for very good reason, they change very little. In one of their trade-mark contradictions, they say that independence will be both a change too far, and no change at all.


Some independence supporters also criticise the SNP for not being sufficiently radical in its thinking. They forget that the current administration has no mandate to make the kind of changes they seek. No government will have that mandate until after the 2016 election.


There are two processes involved here which are too often confused and conflated. There is the process of BECOMING independent, and there is the process of BEING independent. The Scottish Government is charged with responsibility for the former. The latter is the responsibility of the people of Scotland.


What being independent means is limited only be our imagination and our determination. We have no way of knowing where a No vote will take us. But the signs are not good.

Rescooped by Jim Arnott from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Better Together backtrack over school anti-independence packs

Better Together backtrack over school anti-independence packs | Unionist Shenanigans | Scoop.it

The anti-independence campaign Better Together has backtracked on plans to send so-called teacher resource packs out to all secondary schools in Scotland.


Via Peter A Bell
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Jim Arnott from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Thousands of Scottish servicemen denied vote in independence referendum

Thousands of Scottish servicemen denied vote in independence referendum | Unionist Shenanigans | Scoop.it
Thousands of Scottish servicemen will be barred from taking part in the referendum on breaking up Britain next year despite special provision being made to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote.

Via Peter A Bell
Jim Arnott's insight:

Totally misleading. Those who qualify are as entitled to vote in Scotland's independence referendum as they would a local government election. The provisions are exactly the same.

more...
Peter A Bell's curator insight, March 13, 2013 7:08 AM

This entire article is just plain dishonest. There is absolutely nothing in the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill that excludes Serving members of the armed forces. Those who qualify are as entitled to vote in Scotland's independence referendum as they would a local government election. The provisions are exactly the same.

Rather than being deceived by British nationalist lies, people would be well-advised to check the proposed legislation for themselves (http://bit.ly/16rm4qw). Crown Servants and service personnel would be well-advised to get their information from from the Electoral Commission (http://bit.ly/16rm5KV) rather than some deceitful hack with a clear political agenda.