Eat. Sleep. Vote "No". Repeat

"It will open a way for all parties to explore together a lasting alternative arrangement which can enjoy the support of the whole British people."

Truths, inconvenient truths and statistics

Scepticism is good. Healthy. However. There's a kind of self-regarding method of argument that involves everything you say being countered by "So you say. How do I know that's true? Prove it." Each time you present a supporting argument, offer some bit of evidence, the veracity or accuracy of that evidence is questioned. What evidence do you have for the evidence? And so on and so, ultimately unproductively, on.

In the context of the independence debate, from the very earliest days, there's been a clamour from some for "the facts". Actually, usually "just the facts". As if there was a small number of bits of crucial information whose existence was known to the politicians on both sides but which they were choosing to keep secret.

Well, actually, there is.

Splitters

Over 100 academics put their names to a letter reported in the Herald today which was, in short, supportive of Scottish independence and positive about the opportunities it would bring to academia. And how did the Herald choose to report that fact? Under the headline "Academics divided on impact of a Yes vote" it said:

"ACADEMICS are split over the impact of independence on university research after more than 100 of them warned the real threat to Scotland's future comes from remaining part of the United Kingdom."

Is that not, on any view, a bizarrely misleading way to approach things? I don't remember any report of the views expressed by the No equivalent, "Academics Together", as starting off with the observation that the academic community was not unanimously united in its views. But the Herald has form here.
 
It has been breathtaking to watch over the last couple of years as campaigners and commentators have created an atmosphere where not only is it rendered respectable to articulate as a reason for voting No that you "hate Alex Salmond" but where No campaigners perfectly happily cite that as one of the two main reasons given to them by their own supporters:

Wings Over Scotland recently summarised things thus:

A good day to bury good news

Philip Clarke, Chief Executive Officer of Tesco plc was on Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland this morning and was asked, of course, about his company's reaction in the event of Scottish independence. His response was:

"We're the biggest retailer in Scotland. Our bank's headquartered there. Umm...we're going to be in Scotland if it's independent or not".

Martin Gilbert, Chief Executive of Aberdeen Asset Management, Europe's largest independent asset manager with funds of £324.5 billion under management as at 31 March 2014, was on the same programme and was asked, of course, about his company's reaction in the event of Scottish independence. His response was:

"we will remain neutral on the subject because it is a decision for the Scottish people...we have no plans to move our headquarters out of Aberdeen....Let the people decide in September...We already operate in 30 countries round the world so one more's not going to make any difference"

This'll be all over the press and the broadcast media.

Won't it?

Devo nowt

Labour's devo-nano proposals are, to be fair, an advance on the kind of thing envisaged by the Michael Kelly faction. But the claim made by Better Together that they amount to a "guarantee" of "more" "powers" for the Scottish Parliament is simply untrue in any real sense and within any meaning of the word "power" that I know of.

Leave aside the impossibility of the "guarantee". We're not being offered any more power. We are just essentially to be allowed to collect our money from ourselves in a pointlessly complicated, more costly, inefficient way (by a new kind of tax) in order that things are more "transparent". Fair enough, perhaps. Nothing wrong with responsibility. Except, as I say, for the otherwise pointless cost and complexity. It adds nothing material to anything at all.

Don't, of course, take my word for it. Read what Johann Lamont told Durham's Northern Echo newspaper:

"Ms Lamont urged people in the North-East not to believe 'propaganda' about extra powers and riches heading to Edinburgh.
...
[She said] 'Scotland has a fixed budget. Our choice is about how we spend it. I can understand people in the North-East hearing about the fantastic things going on in Scotland, but that other side of it is never spoken about.

Scotland will not be getting more money, it will simply be accountable for raising more of its money. I hope that dispels some myths.'"

Doesn't it just?

It doesn't take a weatherman

A petty, small-minded Scot, on holiday in France, watching their TV and noticing that they do things differently, just like we used to do, writes: "No. HERE'S the bloody weather":

YouYesYet?

"YOU YES YET?™" asked Greg Hemphill a few weeks back. Far, far too fantastic a rallying cry not to be on posters in windows the length and breadth of the country.

So, you can download here a single pdf file comprising eight A4, high resolution versions of the above in a variety of colours to appeal across the political spectrum. You can choose which ones to print off and display or distribute. For sharing online or otherwise, you can download the following jpegs: