closedI get how nothing that any unionist could say would be an adequate replacement for independence and that it's tempting to just mock them. But it also seems to me that just as there's something complacent in Lesley Riddoch's 'we've won regardless' there's also something complacent about trashing everything they say as though it were so obviously and self-evidently stupid or duplicitous that no one could possibly be influenced by it.
I saw two interesting things today. The first was the YouGov poll. While not in itself a huge change, it's significance lies in confirming (to people who follow these things less passionately - like William Hills who shortened the odds on No winning in response) a trend in falling support for Yes. From increasing to stalled to falling. YouGov are serious (in ways that I don't think Panelbase, for instance, are). They routinely get very close on elections. What was most important about it for me was that adding their data to the trend brings the projected trend for Yes to 48% in September. It was 51%.
The other was an article by Michael Ignatieff in the FT. His opening sentence, "Two prominent British politicians recently asked me for advice about how to stem the rising tide of independence in Scotland. The rough stuff – threatening to keep the Scots out of the pound or out of Europe – had failed. What, they wanted to know, had saved the cause of Canada during the Quebec referendum of 1995 when the secessionists came within a percentage point of victory." It's not a huge surprise that prominent British politicians should look to Quebec for advice. It's that the rest of the article almost spells out how to do it. Not a defence of The Union but a defence of union and a lesson in what an emotional appeal to union might look like.
I'll accept that neither on their own are decisive in any way and both can be easily dismissed and mocked but, as I say, mocking suggests a confidence that at this stage would be a mistake to entertain even if you felt it was justified. Even if you're sure you're going to win you should act like there's a chance you could lose. That's what the No side have learned - going from 'bayonetting the wounded' to the dry retch of realising they might lose. I'm not sure Yes have really felt that nausea yet. I'm not sure Salmond or Sturgeon, whose campaign has been defined by hubris (really, drafting the constitution before the votes are counted, how presumptuous is that?) are capable of behaving in any other way.
posts
