Marr, after trying to damn the YES campaign with faint praise on the polls, jumps in with the simplistic Better Together yah-boo mantra - Plan B!
He gets it partially right with "they're so hostile to Scottish independence that it's not bluff and bluster - they just determined to spike your guns" It may well be bluff and bluster (if it's not it's profound economic stupidity, allied to a craven fear of UKIP and their own badly-riven party and doubtful LibDem allies) but it most certainly is driven by hostility to independence and a desire to spike guns. He also observes that there isn't good will on both sides. Again, Marr is half right - there is goodwill, albeit sorely tested on the Scottish Government side and a total absence of it on the UK side.
Marr's next point is that because "no one can say what's going to happen after a YES vote - if that's what happens - and therefore, Scots are going to be left in the situation where they don't know what currency they will be using afterwards. Do you think it's sensible to have a Plan B ..." etc. He asks what's wrong with having a pound Scots or - and this is the mandatory Better Together sneer - "a groat, or whatever it would be called?"
Marr ignores completely the answer he got on his first outing with 'Plan B', and dutifully plays the BT broken record soundbyte. He gets a weary but patient repetition of the FM's first answer on the range of viable currency options, and a reiteration that 'Plan A' - a currency union - is in the best interests of both parties. The FM also reprises the requirement of the Edinburgh Agreement for politicians on both sides to act in the best interests of Scotland and rUK after the referendum.
It all falls on deaf - or uncomprehending - ears. "So why not a Scottish currency?" Any interviewer with any claims to professionalism would have had the Fiscal Commission report in front of him, or at least a key summary - but not Marr. Why bother when you can ignore detailed answers and repeat simplistic questions?
Marr conjures up Barroso. He claims that Barroso was "absolutely adamant in private and in the studio that it would not happen." In fact Barroso said no such thing, since he is unable to speak for all the countries of the EU, and indeed he has been challenged by other heavyweight EU figures on what he did say. He then makes the extraordinary statement that Barroso "has no particular dog in this fight." No 'dog' except the Catalonian people's burning desire for a referendum on their independence.
The FM is too polite - or circumspect - to invoke Catalonia, but he does detail the reality of Barroso's current status and what his ambitions viv-a-vis NATO might be.
Marr then astonishingly offers his own opinion on Scotland's EU membership. "I think it will be quite hard to get back in, I have to say - but let's move on ..."
Let's not, Andrew- you don't get away with that so easily ...
FM: "This is what the Andrew Marr analysis says, as opposed to ... “
Marr: "Having talked to Mr. Barosso of the European Commission ...
FM: "As opposed, Andrew, to the weight of evidence that's been presented to the Scottish Parliament and its committees at the present moment. Is that the individual expression - or the BBC ‘s”
Marr blusters frantically, aware that he's in deep merde. "I've got no views on this, nor has the BBC.."
I'll leave the immigration bit - Marr was similarly simplistic on this topic.
A sad, sad performance from a once incisive political editor - in days gone bye. Long gone bye ...
Posts
Peter, since this referendum period was entered into with an almost two years opportunity in which to discuss the pro and con sides of independence and the status quo, we voters have been beset with obfuscation, lies and misinformation and to my knowledge, none of it has come from the YES side.
ReplyDeleteI cannot recall one single attempt by YES to present anything but the verifiable facts of the matter and indeed they have constructed during this period both a solid case for Scotland becoming an independent entity and also including the most compatible arrangements for a future rUK .
The main planks of a continuing 'good neighbourly relationship' seem to be the common currency and an ongoing EU membership and these predictably so, have been the two areas focused on by the NO side to restrict cooperation, but at what cost?
On EU status, post referendum, it is the UK membership which is up for discussion as a whole. Legal advice from the ruling body, ie., the EC is available but only via a London request and advice, which may, or may not, have been taken is not being made known, which in turn raises a question as to why ever not, hinting it clearly does not suit the UK side?
On the common currency concept and all that entails, another rUK 'no-go' notional refusal is pushed, despite a clarity offered by the Scottish Government tying the sharing of assets with the sharing of debt, which predicts something akin to fiscal suicide if followed through by the rUK , so why is this happening?
Is it all mere posturing, to see who can 'pee the highest' no matter the windblown splash-back? Or is it the lemming-like rush for a sink-hole already opening up?
Whatever it is, it is becoming tedious, dangerous and petty. For my money –it may well be worth cutting the strings for good and putting the United Kingdom gently and finally to rest with the rest of the dinosaurs. What negotiating position over say Trident removal would result from a crumbly acquiesced agreement where power is left in the hands of those who will seek to dishonour it from the very start. No thanks.
Thanks, Barontorc.
DeleteNone of it it is surprising to a negotiator, but that doesn't mean UK are behaving in the best manner to achieve a result. Since the result they want is a No vote, and the heart of their opposition is nuclear weapons, they'll keep this up and intensify it till September.
There is little point bemoaning it - we must simply continue to work to counter it.
UK would love to push Scotland into a radical stance on independence at the moment - it would give them a golden opportunity to nullify the Edinburgh Agreement and use more traditional UK methods of hanging on to the last bit of the British Empire.
Let's not offer them such an excuse.
regards,
Peter