Wednesday, 1 May 2013

Anti-Scotland Campaign Is Deliberately Confusing Voters

The anti-Scotland BetterTogether campaign, which shares a sponsor with indicted war criminal Zeljko "Arkan" Raznatovic, and is supported by the British National Party, Labour, the British Government, Ukip and the fascist Orange Order, has recently been making great political capital out of the shock revelation that the National Party, Green Party and Socialist Party have differing ideas about the economy. 

We in the Socialist Party supports Scotland following the example of our northern neighbours and using our own independent currency after independence. This position is supported by former Labour MP, and Yes Scotland chairman, Dennis Canavan.

The National Party supports Scotland retaining our current Pound Sterling for the forseeable future. 

The Green Party supports an eventual move to an independent currency, and using the Pound Sterling to begin with. That the Pound Sterling is the best interim currency is supported by Yes CEO Blair Jenkins, and the musician Pat Kane, of the Yes board. 

Nobody supports entry into the Euro for the time being. This is because entry into the Euro is dependent on a member state being a member of ERM-II, with its own independent currency, for a period of two years. 

The anti-Scotland campaign was caught in a flat-out lie with a scaremongering falsehood that an independent Scotland would be "forced" to adopt the Euro. They have now, notably, completely dropped this argument in favour of one that says we will be banned from using the freely-convertible Pound Sterling, issued by the independent UK Central Bank, which is a part-Scottish asset. 

It is part of a worrying pattern from the anti-Scotland campaign. They push one outright lie in their media outlets: when it is easily proven to be false, they simply move onto the next scaremongering, terrorising lie. 

The only tactic that they have is to terrorise the people of Scotland. 

The diversity of opinion in Yes Scotland regarding the currency, amongst other things, is a major problem for the anti-Scotland campaign. Their tactic has been to demand answers about the specific policies of an independent Scotland: clearly ludicrous given that it will be up to the Scots electorate to select a government with its own particular set of policies. 

So, having demanded specific policies (when this is a referendum on a principle rather than an election on a manifesto) in order to bamboozle and frighten the electorate they hold in such contempt, they have completely swung the pendulum to the other extreme. 

They smear the Yes campaign as being an "SNP front" - but with the other side of their Janus faces, they demand that all parties in Yes share policies, and criticise when this isn't the case. It is bizarre, and symptomatic of the complete contempt for Scotland and negative tactics of the anti-Scotland campaign. 

I have added a Venn diagram to make it slightly clearer for them. The SNP is part of the Yes campaign. The Green Party is part of the Yes campaign but not part of the National Party. The Socialist Party is on the Yes board, but is not led by Alex Salmond. 

One question does arise:

if the anti-Scotland campaign genuinely does believe that the campaigns on each side should share policies as well as the constitutional principles (Yes believes that the Scottish people should decide the Scottish policies; No believes that David Cameron should do so), then would it not be perfectly reasonable to assume that the Labour Party supports the Tory/Liberal Bedroom Tax?

We do, after all, know that the official BetterTogether position is that the Bedroom Tax is "popular and right". 

Would it not be perfectly reasonable to assume that the Liberal Party supports Ukip and the BNP's racist immigration and employment policies?

Would it not be perfectly reasonable to ask why, just like in the Yes campaign, the anti-Scotland campaign is split over the currency, with the Liberals being pro-Euro, Labour being Euro-gradualists, and the BNP, Ukip and Tories in favour of retaining the UK's almost half-century old currency?

The anti-Scotland campaign's pretense at not understanding basic parts of cross-party campaigns, and worse, a deliberate and quite malicious attempt at frightening and confusing voters in order to terrorise them into voting No next year, devalues them, and it reduces the debate on independence to one side simply telling as many lies as they can get into the newspapers, and the other unable to advance its argument because it is reduced to trying to firefight. 

Arkan, with his well-known contempt for the democratic process, would be nodding with approval at the way BetterTogether is spending his money.

No comments:

Post a Comment