I have a question. Given that the ballot will not set out any vision or result in the election of any government which has set out a vision, how are voters supposed to vote for their preferred vision? Or to put it another way, how are voters supposed to know what vision they are voting for?
I have questions. How does a person like Ben Bradley get to be a person like Ben Bradley? How do we explain such repulsive disfigurement of the soul? Whence this malign indifference to others' distress? But first of all I want to ask what the hell is wrong with dependency anyway?
Why would we empower their deviousness? Why would we pander to their lack of principle? Why would we facilitate interference in our constitutional referendum by what, if we heed Joanna Charry's advice, we must regard as an unfriendly foreign power? Am I missing some impenetrably cryptic irony here?
The constitutional confrontation which pits Scotland's aspirations against British entitlement is a parallel to - perhaps a proxy for - the ages-old battle between deprivation and privilege. Between insecurity and invulnerability. Between power denied and power accrued. To be a nationalist in the context of the fight to restore Scotland's rightful status and defend the identity which is imbued with our hope and determination to address the gross imbalances of British society, is to be part of the same cause as inspired all the great social reformers of the past. Wear your Scottish civic nationalism with quiet pride! It is an honourable and a worthy thing.
Plan B is, at best, a half-measure. It is exciting and appealing only because it stands in contrast to a Plan A which in a desert analogy now stretched well beyond its safe operating limits would be the equivalent of drinking our own urine. Plan A is bad. Plan B is merely a bit less bad.
A more concise way of putting the two options I mentioned in the first paragraph is that we can have a Scottish referendum or we can have a British referendum. One or the other.
"Onward and onward! Then onward some more!"
Why would we, in one breath assert the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and in the next allow that the British state has the rightful authority to question the choices made by the sovereign people of Scotland? What kind of 'sovereignty-lite' does the Reverend Campbell envisage? Is this conditional sovereignty conceptually similar to the idea of 'managed democracy'? I think we should be told before we commit to anything.
Given that no credible process for a free and fair referendum exists within the legal and constitutional framework developed by the British state for the purpose of preserving the Union at any cost to the people of Scotland, the party must commit to creating such a process immediately upon being elected to govern. Only be having a commitment to the Manifesto for Independence well in advance of the election can the Scottish Government have an unassailable mandate to take the action which will be required when the inevitable confrontation with the British state happens.
Only if Boris Johnson had developed a conscience since the last time he was denounced for having done something unforgivable might he now be wounded by a fresh denunciation for some new unforgivable act.