Theresa May or may not?

Is it not a bit of an anomaly that Theresa May who backed the Remain Campaign will now have to go to the EU to try and explain to them that them that it is to their advantage for the UK to leave.  She will have to argue that Britain will not be a member of the EU but wish to enjoy all the advantages but not be subject to the disadvantages. I can imagine that France and Germany in particular will argue that she was in favour of remaining but now is trying to convince them of the opposite. 

It is difficult to imagine that the UK Government who initiated the referendum were not aware of the consequences of the vote - whether for or against -  and the resulting economic chaos.  At times of economic chaos, obviously, the markets can be played and vast sums of money can be made so who took monetary advantage of this situation?  It is too simplistic to surmise that the referendum was held solely to attract UKIP voters although that was probably a useful by-product.

In the House of Commons May was asked if she would press the nuclear button causing the death of hundreds of thousands and she immediately, with no hesitation or deliberation, answered Yes but that raises several issues.  Would she be allowed by her allies to do so without consultation?  There is a protocol that the UK would only use nuclear weapons if under nuclear attack.  However,  potential enemies, devoid of the British sense of 'fair play', are hardly likely to give warning of an imminent attack and would obviously know where she was and could obliterate that entire area before she could act.  It could be argued that nuclear submarines could launch attacks in retaliation but after the mishaps in the Isle of Skye and Gibraltar can they be regarded as a viable threat.  To be honest if my arse was getting blown out of the window it would be no consolation whatsoever to know that men, women and children elsewhere were suffering the same fate.

The Labour party is a chaotic shambles - that's all I've got on that for now.... 

Power to depress

Whilst perusing Munguin's mighty organ I came across a comment from a contributor called Dean.  As far as I am aware Dean is a post-graduate student which would indicate that he is of above average intelligence which makes his comment more risible and incredible. 

Munguin's Republic is a blog which supports Scottish independence and on almost a daily basis points out the ruthless arrogance, inadequacies and absurdities of the current and previous UK  governments backed up with actual and verifiable facts.

Given this abundance of information what does Dean focus on?  With information apparently gathered from the more rabid, which includes most of the UK, media his contribution concentrates on crowing regarding the situation of three SNP MPs who have been tried and found guilty by the mass media but by no-one else.   

The three concerned are, we understand, under investigation and the longer the investigations take gives the media every opportunity to portray these investigations as proof of wrong-doing not just by them but the SNP as a party. 

In the lead up to the Scottish elections we will find many more attempts by unionist politicians, aided and abetted by the media, to 'sling mud' at the SNP.  As shown at the General Election the vast majority of voters will see these tactics  for what they are and the reasons behind them.  It is doubly disappointing then to see those with a supposedly superior intellect falling for these tactics. 

Options

Prior to the debate between Salmond and Darling it was obvious that the sticking point for Salmond would be the question of a currency union and so it proved.  Claiming that the pound was as much Scottish as the rUK's - whilst it may well be true - and, therefore, could justify a currency union does not chime with impartial viewers who are aware that the Libdem, the Tories and the Labour party have categorically ruled it out and they certainly will not change their mind over that issue before the referendum.

To my simple mind Salmond and the Yes campaign have two options.

Salmond talks about the "sovereignty of the state" so, given that there is no immediate urgency regarding the currency an independent Scotland would use he could announce that in line with that sovereignty and due to the intransigence of the Libdems, the Labour party and the Tories over this issue that all the options will be offered to voters in a referendum after an independence vote. Actually, I view this "intransigence as utter contempt and feel that this should be impressed on voters. 

The advantages and disadvantages of each option could be clearly explained to voters.

I think that this would have several advantages:

The Yes campaign would demonstrate their willingness to listen to the people and are prepared to act according. 

It would dispel most of the negativity displayed on a daily basis by the No campaign and the media.

The No brigade would be deprived of the opportunity to criticise plans for the adopted currency.

It would be difficult for politicians and especially Lamont, Davidson and Rennie, with future Scottih votes in mind, to attempt to ridicule such a stance.

We would get away from this ridiculous "Yes, we can, No you can't" present situation.

Those, like me, who do not want the rUK to have any say in Scotland's future policies would have the opportunity to vote over this issue. 

Alternatively, those who wish for a currency union. of whatever form, would have the opportunity to make their wishes heard.

It would demonstrate that the SNP's White Paper is not necessarily the future direction Scotland will take.

Those in the Yes campaign, and their voters, will take heart from such a move.

Given that the will of the people has been consulted it would strengthen the hand of those who will be engaged in, post dependence, negotiations with the rUK Government.

As I said previously my favoured option would be Scotland's own currency for reasons that I will go into when I have more time. 

Oxymoron

A lady buys a top of the range Rolls Royce but took it back to the dealer the next day because the radio did not work.  The dealer explained that it was a voice-activated radio which would respond to anything she wanted to listen to.  For instance, if she shouted "Beethoven" the radio would play Beethoven and if she shouted "Elvis" the radio would play an Elvis song.  If she did not want to listen to music she should shout "News" and the radio would respond with the latest news.

She tried it out several times and was delighted with the response.  She was listening to some soothing music when a truck driven by an extremely stout gentleman swung out in front of her forcing her to slam on her brakes.  She lowered her window and shouted "Fat moron" and the radio responded "This is a speech by Alastair Carmicheal on behalf of the Better together campaign"! 

To see ourselves as others see us!

A recent discussion on Tris's illustrious blog, Munguin's Republic,r regarding portraits of the famous/infamous for enormous sums of money reminded me of an incident when I was a young sprog and budding young Constable - the artist, not the fuzz.  We were set a project to copy a portrait by a better-known artist and I chose to try and copy "Tolstoy takes a rest in the woods" which portrayed a bearded gentleman, reminiscent of Conan, reading a book in the woods.  Having spent weeks on it and going over it in minute detail I triumphantly handed it in only to be gently reminded, two seconds later, that Tolstoy probably had more than three fingers on his right hand as shown in the portrait.

However, I am still available at a reasonable price if the UK Government would like to get in touch. 

No, Taz, there is a limit to what I can do with the subject matter.

I'll get me coat.

An old lady in a care-home for the elderly had an electric wheel-chair where she would zoom up and down the corridors.  An elderly gentleman, a former policeman, would suddenly jump out in front of her and tell her off for speeding, at the same time asking to see her licence.  She would pull out her pension book and after looking at it he would say "Carry on but watch your speed".  This would go on for ages and each time she would say "Not again" but each time he insisted on demanding her "licence".  One day he jumped out in front of her totally naked and she exclaims "Oh, no, not the breathalyser again.................

Murphy had a factory which made nails but his products were not selling well.  A friend advised him to advertise on TV and told him that a friend of his produced videos promoting products.  The producer invited him round to the studio to give him a sample of the advert he had devised.  The ad began with a hill in the distance and as the camera zoomed in they could see that there were three crosses on the hill.  As the camera zoomed in further they could see that there were men nailed to each cross and on further zooming in you could see the centre figure had nails in the palms of his hand and the caption was "USE MURPHY's NAILS".

Murphy was horrified and said you cannot use the man on the cross because of the obvious connotations and the producer said "Are you sure because I've booked the advert to be seen after the first part of Coronation Street tonight but Murphy was adamant and finally the producer said "Okay, I won't use the man on the cross.

Murphy and his family were watching Coronation Street and eventually the advert came up.  Murphy was horrified to see a hill in the distance and, eventually, three crosses on the hill.  However, when the camera picked out the middle cross there was no-one on the cross and Murphy breathed a sigh of relief and said "Thank feck for that" but then the camera panned down to the bottom of the cross and there was a prostrate figure on the ground and the caption read "THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF THEY'D USED MURPHY'S NAILS"!!

If I was Salmond.......

As a devoted reader and poster of nonsensical comments on the Scotsman newspaper(?) I cannot help noticing that, on rare occasions, the paper is less than impartial and that every initiative announced by the Yes faction is apparently scrutinised and dissected by the NO campaign before going into print.  If one expert agrees with a Yes policies the Scotsman seems to find another expert to countermand the policy and the political opponents or other non-entities are quoted at great length. 

Not that the Scotsman newspaper is alone in this lack of impartiality but the world famous tax-payer funded BBC even use judicious editing of news items to make them appear anti-independence as was the case with a senior Irish politician.  We could expect something along these lines from unionist newspapers - we all know who they are - but not from an impartial broadcaster like the BBC.

Now, if I were Salmond I would say on behalf of the SNP and the Scottish government that: 

Next year the people of Scotland will make the most important decision of their lives which will affect not just them but their children and their children's children and for generations to come.

We will be voting not just for independence but also regarding monetary union or alternatives, membership of organisations such as the EU, NATO, the UN or alternatives to these organisations.

Whilst we were voted into Government with more MSPs than the other parties we are, of course, aware that significant numbers did not vote for us or our policies.  We are also aware that we may not be forming the next Scottish government and that our policies might be subsumed by others.

That being the case, in the event of a YES vote, to be fair to all concerned, we will hold a referendum on all issues such as those mentioned above and, in view of the importance of these decisions we will let the people of Scotland decide the future direction of this country.

To my mind, such a decision would completely wrong-foot the Better Together campaign who would not be able to argue that Westminster knows best regarding the wishes and aspirations of Scottish voters.

It would also attract voters who may, or may not, wish to join the organisations mentioned but who, at present, feel that their voices may not be heard or that their opinions do not matter.

When all is said and done if voters feel that, far from being dictated to, they are being consulted in every aspect of their future they are much more likely to vote for the opportunity to do so.