|The BBC unusually opening comments on an article containing something about #indyref. Oh hold on, its something negative - nothing to see here, move along now.|
If there was a Brit Award for daftness, the person responsible for the comment above* would be a contender, it definitely falls in to the 'if-you-had-to-explain-they'd-never-understand' category. Since no such award exists (and I think the debate is the poorer for it,) we're left with David Bowie and his heart-felt plea via Kate Moss for Scotland to stay a region of the UK.
Imagine it for a second, you have the opportunity to go your own way, leaving behind the 3rd most iniquitous country in the Western world - coming from the UN via The Independent, this is not a Yes Scotland propaganda yarn. Being governed by a political party with NO mandate what-so-ever in Scotland, by a system of government that means Scotland will rarely get the administrations it votes for because in Scotland; there are 59 MP's while in the home counties alone, there are 139.
|In the event of a No vote, Westminster hopes to reduce the number of Scottish MP's still further.|
Because a millionaire tax avoiding pop star who doesn't even live in the UK said via a millionaire super model - "Scotland stay with us" - you should vote no?
Well, you'd have to be on drugs to take that advice wouldn't you?
Oh hold on.
Meanwhile, the press has gone mental over four one syllable words uttered at an alcohol fueled, cocaine be-fugged gathering of the Popperati. The Sun columnist Bill Leckie this morning was on #TRSFKACK (ex-Call Kaye) declaring he'll be voting no because lots of yes supporters were mean on Twitter. He went on to bemoan the notion that the Yes Campaign had failed to provide any positive, sensible or factual reasons to vote yes.
Bill, I hate to say this; but you just decided to vote no because of something David fucking Bowie (via Kate Moss)said on a show which awards and celebrates pop music and clothes.
There are those who'd view the sentence above and the asterisked sentence further up as abuse, I'd view them as reasonable observations of reality.
To finish, why do the press insisting on labeling independence-based opinions from the great and not-so-great, not explicitly in support of the Yes Campaign - as 'interventions'? Everyone seems to be intervening - do they know what the word means?
1. the act or fact of intervening.
2. interposition or interference of one state in the affairs of another.
I suspect they use the word because it sounds grave & serious (I bet they had meetings about using it,) I don't for a moment think they're using it to describe 'interference of one state in the affairs of another' because that makes them look a bit rotten.
Even if they are using it with the actual definition in mind, I don't think David Bowie qualifies as a 'state' or representative there-of - nor do I imagine anyone (except Bill Leckie) gives a toss what David Bowie thinks about the independence referendum in any case.