Think it’s incredibly blindly-partisan in the sense that you could find a huge amount of Brexit-y tendencies in both Yes and No. almost to the point where I’d suggest you were being disingenuous
I remember in a Guardian feature on Farage, quite a while before Brexit, Farage had arranged lunch with some ‘normal’ people in a pub up north, Grimsby or something and stood them up to meet Joey Essex.
So you’re saying that the No campaign was more Brexit-y because… it wanted to stay in the EU?
Nope. Don’t play the dafty
The point is that EU membership was weaponised in outright deceitful ways.
Now, no-one sane will claim that any political campaign is 100% rooted in hard facts and is shiny happy throughout. But, that tweet stands as an example of the fear-based negative campaigning that was used.
The whole thing was predicated on the notion that to protect your EU membership you vote No. And that has (surprise!) turned out to be bollocks.
If staying in the EU was genuinely a thing that was wanted by and was being offered by Better Together, we’d have had them swearing off an EU referendum. But that’s obviously not what happened.
And, to come back to the quip by @Parsefone - it’s kind of a fair cop (that’s my brand and my prism, yo), but this isn’t so much a case of making it about Scotland, it’s about pointing out that the same stupid shit seems to keep happening, but in ever more amplified ways. It’s tragicomic.
The middle classes need to be banned from everything. Need to remove their internet connection and keep them indoors they’re such weirdos.
Hmm, this seems to be a particularly blinkered interpretation of events as:
To many people in the No campaign Brexit was a surprise as well as an undesirable outcome (we can discuss the naivety of that til the cows come home, but that’s an argument for another time, and the point still stands that the vast majority of people in No campaigned on the genuine belief that we’d be staying in the EU)
A large part of the No campaign would have sworn off the EU membership. Again, saying that the entire movement agreed with the subsequent actions of David Cameron and his supporters, and therefore were deceptively weaponising this issue, is another example of how huge a generalisation you’re making to add weight to your political position.
I’m not disagreeing that the No campaign had Brexit-y tendencies - it did, especially in those parts of it that were coming from a more Conversative, “Keep Britain Great” angle. I’m arguing that you’re mistaken by suggesting that the sides on both referenda are comparable and that No = Brexit and Yes = Remain. If you actually take out the most Brexit-y criteria of Brexit (I.e. wanting to leave the EU, which on the whole neither side wanted to do), both campaigns (and certainly elements within them) displayed very unsavoury tendencies that are analogous to some of the worst tendencies of Brexit.
This is why I’m annoyed. You’re looking at elements of one campaign - elements that arguably don’t apply to even a majority of the people in that campaign - in order to portray the side you support in a superior light.
Full disclosure - I spoiled ballot in Indyref 1, but given the events of the past couple of years would support Indyref 2 and probably support the campaign (if I was still living in Scotland), so I’m not some dogmatic unionist. You were just taking the piss a bit
I think what’s happening here is that you’re looking at the finer policy points of Yes, No, Leave and Remain policy positioning and alignment from one referendum to another. Whereas my point wasn’t about policy but about the approach, attitude, tactics, aftermath, etc.
Re: your response on the specific point about EU membership as part of that campaign:
The Brexit result might have been a surprise to some No campaigners. But the holding of a referendum shouldn’t have been, seeing as Cameron promised one in a speech in January 2013, whilst simultaneously warning of the strong possibility Brexit being the outcome. The whole thing of if you want to retain the security of EU membership, vote No thing was balls, and the campaign knew it. And, yes, it’s one example, but I’m calling it out as representative.
Cameron loved promising referendums he had no intention of holding. Remember his “cast iron guarantee” before he was elected PM in 2010? Quickly backed down on that, didn’t he.
He was a slippery sod for sure. But… he’d held a referendum on voting reform, and signed the Edinburgh Agreement. So the ‘hollow threat/empty promise’ angle doesn’t really stand in that regard.
Yeah. Difference for me is the other two were effectively concession to other parties. Never thought he’d be stupid enough to hold one on the issue guaranteed to tear his own party apart though.
Shows what I know
Pretty fair response but I’d say this one bit misses the fact that although the BT campaign wanted to stay in the EU framing voting NO was the only way to do so was a bit disingenuous to say the least. I mean it’s all ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ however there were plenty of indications that the EU would welcome Scotland to the EU as an independent country.
Anyway I guess it’s all academic now cause it was a fairly clear NO and despite the promises/arguments made having been shown to be false/weak we’re all collectively driving off some sort of cliff and can someone please hold me.
Come, come… There was a hefty dose of concession to UKIP factored in one EU ref (voters, not MPs, natch, though numerous potential defections was never truly out of the question).
The Cameron’s Concessions thing is an interesting angle, though. Callme clearly saw referendums as a way to have down opposing party issues and put stuff to bed. Worked a treat with Clegg, who caved in before the fight had even begun. Fair to say he ‘won the battle but not the war’ (not the classiest of terminology, I admit) in Scotland? (The ‘Tory comeback’ North of the border isn’t A Thing.) And with the EU ref, he absolutely dropped a bollock, to say the least. If he’d have overseen a Remain win, the mind boggles at the referendum he would have held to try and bury Labour.
carole has gone bye bye
I like the way she dropped Amal Clooney’s name in the middle of that.
Does this mean that James Ball is a Russian sleeper agent?
One thing I’d add is that I doubt he’d have held the EU referendum if he hadn’t already had (and won) the first two. I think it gave him a false impression of invulnerability on these votes and he likely never doubted for a second he had the whole thing under control (despite the evidence of the indyRef campaign suggesting he was a bit clueless on single issue matters).
George Clooney who starred in one fine day which is set in New York and takes place just 5 years before 9/11. Worth looking into I think.
It’s when you see stuff like this that you realise just how much of her stuff is predicated on the understanding that you can connect any two people in the world in five steps or less. More troubling is the fact I think she genuinely buys all of it. She has a Pepe Silvia board in her basement without question.