|Photographed during an a capella rendition of Rule Britannia.|
Among other things, she said:
"If we were to leave the United Kingdom it would inevitably mean one set of rules and regulations in Scotland and another set just across the border in the remainder of the UK,"
"Different financial regulations, different employment laws, different insurance requirements, different tax authorities, different accreditation and qualifications with which small companies would be obliged to contend - all barriers to trade, obstructions to economic growth and impediments to the job creation in Scotland we all want to see."
She also vomited out a load of figures which meant nothing because the premise she deployed above while true - is also false. It's 'inevitable' because what she claims will cause insurmountable problems has actually been the case since the beginning of the Union.
"A sixth of a million Scottish jobs, nearly £10 billion of financial service exports, and most of that built on doing business within the single UK market. The facts are clear: Scotland is more successful and more prosperous by working in partnership with the rest of the three nations in the UK."'A sixth of a million Scots jobs...' Why not just say 166,666 - or did that not sound like enough? Maybe we could talk about the one fourth of a million kids in Scotland who'll be living in poverty by 2020 if your party is allowed to continue what it's doing?
If I understand what Ruth is saying, Scotland generates (nearly) £10 billion in financial services exports, the tax from which goes to the UK treasury. Bear with me here, the UK treasury is currently controlled by a Tory-led coalition - a coalition that knows Scotland did not vote for it.
What is more likely, the Tory-led government - realising that it can win Westminster elections without Scottish votes will a) send money north to garner votes it doesn't need or b) use it in the south to get the votes it does need.
I think Ruth's definition of a partnership is a bit skewed.
Besides all that, she's horribly behind the times, these arguments have been debunked so often, I'm not sure why she bothers.
I'm not big on the emotional 'wha's like us' stuff, I don't really give a shit about all that. But what kind of person is so willing not just to do their country down but to actually do it a disservice, to damage the prospects of the people growing up within it? These reheated arguments are not facts, they're fabricated opinions-of-convenience based on half-truths, disinformation and cherry-picked statistics.
Ruth Davidson is doing two things here, she's preaching to a home crowd while keeping others good and scared. I'm not aware of any pragmatic reasons for voting no in 2014, (obviously I would say that,) but to do so because a bunch of amoral troughers assisted by their sycophant hingers-on kept you...
Well, if you don't end up kicking yourselves, I dare say there might be a few eager volunteers.
Figuratively speaking of course.