As I said, Salmond didn't want to win, he wanted to panic Westminster into giving him more powers with less accountability. Even though he didn't win, he got what he actually wanted. A very canny and astute politician, to be fair, but does making Salmond happy improve Scotland's situation?
I don't know if I'm just being unduly cynical here, but were the No guys really so unsure of their case that they really believed that handing over free bags of sweeties to Salmond would do the trick? Fuck that. If there was ever proof that the current parliament was populated by vacuous makeweight retards*, this was surely it? You had no plan, nothing more powerful than to bring out a discredited, cowardly ex-Prime Mentalist to make offers that NO FUCKING CUNT HAD VOTED ON?
That's a ringing endorsement of democracy right there.
A further ringing endorsement is that despite it being massively engaged, with a broader plebiscite than usual and huge turnout, the result ultimately disenfranchises nearly half of the Scottish population.
Let's be generous for a moment: let's imagine that all the people voting yes had done detailed research, had genuine aspirations to independence and had a clear, optimistic vision of their future - those people will now never have the chance to exercise that vision. 45% (and possibly more) of the Scottish people will now have to live out their lives with their greatest aspiration as a people, crushed.
Now let's be realistic: one-third of the Yes voters would have voted whatever the SNP suggested, much like one-third of the UK's population would vote for Labour, even if their MP was a massive turd wearing a red rosette. Or John Prescott. One-third of them would have voted as a protest against the Tories, because Thatcher. And the rest would have genuinely aspired to independent Scotland. What would have happened if they'd won?
Which of those scenarios makes a better case for democracy? The case that a large portion (in the UK overall it's generally TWO-THIRDS of us) now live in a situation they didn't want; or the case that unreasoned, unthinking stupidity can make a decision that everyone else has to live with?
*Apologies to retards everywhere.
4 comments:
I was hoping for a YES vote but sadly expecting a NO vote. It was down to economics. Worries about pensions and the bawbees decided the outcome. If that tosser Salmond had sound economic information and a sound economic strategy he might have won.
PPE isn't an "Oxbridge" thing. Only Oxford teaches PPE.
Cambridge produces scientists, comedians, and spies instead.
See this for an opposite point of view: http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2014/09/19/the-scottish-referendum-a-win-for-england/
Yes I see your point.
I'd share this if it didn't have the word 'retard'in it.
Post a Comment