Via Yahoo, I've just caught up with a Reuters report on the independence referendum that reads like a Labour or Downing Street press release -
"Parliament threw down the gauntlet to Scottish separatists on Wednesday, challenging them to answer a series of questions about how an independent Scotland would work before they ask Scots to vote on whether they want independence or not."
"Parliament"? Which parliament? After all, as any self-respecting Brit Nat will tell you (when it suits them), "Scotland has two parliaments". And I'm not convinced that "separatists" is a sufficiently vivid charaterisation of what these bloody people are all about - maybe "divorce-seekers" or "home-wreckers" would be better? (Or how about "animals"?)
"Some campaign battle lines have already been drawn, with the SNP demanding 90 percent of Britain's North Sea oil revenues for Scotland..."
Just how much oil revenues does the London government expect to receive from beneath the waters of another sovereign state? By contrast, the SNP is "demanding" 100% of Scotland's own oil revenues, and 0% of other countries' oil revenues. How very dare they?
"Questions sent to the lawmakers by ordinary voters ranged from whether their welfare provisions would be cut to whether they would still have access to BBC television and whether they could still use their British passports for foreign travel."
Well, I rather think the latter question has more to do with the passport policy of a post-independence London government. Perhaps Ian Davidson and his fearless committee of truth-seekers should be "throwing down the gauntlet" to their own side on behalf of the common man?
* * *
If you've read the thread on which the PB Tory hordes descended the other night, you'll have been given a crash course in one of the most fundamental articles of faith of the right-wing group-think that permeates their 'home site', namely that comments from a Scottish nationalist perspective are above all else extremely "boring", and that this is the all-purpose get-out clause that permits censorship to be sought without compromising any principles about open debate. For future reference, here is a handy extract from the PBspeak-to-English dictionary...
PBspeak : "You're being really boring, James/Mick/Oldnat."
English translation : "But...but...but...you're talking about a non-Westminster topic! Again!"
Yes, the PB Tory Herd do seem to view the world through the Dimblebyesque prism that "Westminster is God", and that by definition all Westminster village topics are of constant and universal interest, no matter how navel-gazing and repetitive. By contrast, non-Westminster topics are perhaps OK for an "and finally" piece on News at Ten once in a while (or perhaps one of those condescending animated items on The Daily Politics with hairy Picts and icebergs on the Firth of Forth), but anything more than that is just tedious, quite frankly.
A vivid illustration of this mindset was provided on Monday, when I took the (thankfully now defunct) ban on posts about Scotland at face value, and wrote about an entirely different topic. But the PB Tory brain just couldn't seem to discern any difference - my discussion of Welsh language education was just a continuation of my 'crazy, tedious obsession' with non-Westminster topics...
"You think the debate here is nuanced?
Where Mr J Kelly cannot talk about the Macbeth situation, so talks about Welsh language independence instead?
That's not nuance. That's obsession."