I got the latest of several emails from Tory millionaire grass-roots group "Vote No Borders" the other day (in spite of never having signed up for their mailing list!), and it was entitled "Why build another wall?" Which is a good question, but an even better question is "Why not take that up with your colleagues in the No campaign such as Home Secretary Theresa May, who are the only people to have ever actually proposed anything other than a completely open border between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK, albeit only as a transparent ruse?"
Oh, and a question I'd quite like to ask "Vote No Borders" myself is : I take it this inspiring vision of a world without borders also includes the border between France and England, which I had to tediously queue up to get through at Calais only a couple of weeks ago? Admittedly it was quite fun walking up to the stern UK border guard while wearing my little Yes badge, but even so. Mr Cameron, tear down this wall!
* * *
Alex Massie is continuing with his "equal opportunities irritant" approach to referendum blogging, with one or two posts designed to get on the nerves of No supporters being reliably followed by one or two posts designed to get on the nerves of Yes supporters, and so on into infinity. Which is fair enough, but he gave the game away when in a perhaps unguarded remark at the end of his latest piece, he described himself as a "normally jaded unionist". Question : why did the BBC allow any sort of "unionist" to take part in a high-profile TV debate a few months ago on the specific basis that he was an "undecided voter" in a referendum on independence?
* * *
Stephen Daisley's irreverent articles for the STV website have been a breath of fresh air in recent weeks, but if his piece on the "town hall debate" the other night is anything to go by, let's hope to God he never becomes ITV's political editor. He seems to be suffering from the Tom Bradby syndrome of projecting his own political instincts onto an imaginary "average voter", and therefore assuming that absolute personal bias constitutes perfect objectivity. Apparently normal people were all utterly bored by what Patrick Harvie said about the prospect of children being burned to death by the UK's Trident nuclear warheads. Well, if you like, Stephen, we could always pretend that Trident sings children a lullaby to gently send them to sleep - it would be a lie, but a pretty lie all the same. The reality is that the Hiroshima bomb, which was many, many magnitudes less powerful than a modern British nuclear weapon, incinerated countless children as they sat in school classrooms.
Ironically, Stephen concludes his article by charging both campaigns with ignoring the big issues of debt and the affordability of pensions. Forgive me, but isn't the avoidance of a nuclear holocaust, and the virtual extinction of the human race it would entail, a weightier issue still? Crushingly boring to you, Stephen, I know, but...
Oh, and Stephen also praises Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson to the skies for her "moving words" about the military. So no problem at all with her gaffe about the UK needing nuclear weapons to "stand tall in the world", ie. weapons of mass destruction justified purely on the grounds of national prestige. Just remind me - what did we say we were invading Iraq for?
* * *
The reaction of a Scottish Labour spokesman to the decision of the RMT union membership to back a Yes vote -
"Six trade unions, representing 130,000 people across the public and private sector in Scotland, are in favour of a No vote on September 18."
Yes, those unions may represent 130,000 people, but how many of those 130,000 people were actually balloted before the unions decided their stance?
"Even this ballot did not show a majority in favour of independence - 56% of people who voted didn't support a Yes vote."
'Even' this ballot? As opposed to all the other ballots that didn't take place, I suppose? In case you're wondering, the 56% figure refers to the fact that there was also a "no position" option on the RMT ballot - 44% of members voted Yes, 41% voted No, and the remaining 15% voted for no position. That does of course mean that 59% didn't support a No vote, which I can only presume must be EVEN WORSE than 56% not supporting a Yes vote?