My statement there was a little too terse and sparse - what I mean is that - as Nick Faulks pointed out - the average voter in the Scottish Referendum cannot have been uninfluenced by the range and power of the propaganda the Unionist side pumped out during the campaign. Given that, I think many an honest Scot would be inclined to be 'canny' about how to vote. (Of course, avoiding splitting away during the oil-price crash was a blessing.)John McKenna wrote: I will think about it all, but right now the way I read it is that the Scots should have voted for independence in the Scottish Referendum. That would have been the honest way, however, they chose the canny way.
What on earth does this mean? If you are accusing me of not being honest, I think you need to explain.
Alistair, you certainly strike me as a thoroughly honest person. I read what you wrote above with great interest and thank you for saying it as you see it.
Elections these days are far from simple, which is why a great many may have given up voting at all, in my view.
In my own case down here in the London area I had to put four Xs on three different-coloured voting papers.
Two were simple - I just followed the Green cross code. (The traffic pollution in London is killing people, you know.)
However, for the other two - after some mental gymnastics - I went Blue then Purple!!
I know you may struggle to understand that but it made a kind of tactical sense to me and in the end it was all I could do to square that circle. I'm still trying to work out what the impact, if any, my votes may have had on the outcomes. [And why Harry Lamb of UKIP fame seems to live mainly(?) in France.]
All I can say is I am satisfied that I had no part in electing Sheik Sadiq to office, nor his two-timing (he kept two jobs) predecessor Bojo the Bozo.
Adieu.
PS Do you know what the "UKIP spat" you mentioned was about? (Probably the usual sour grapes after the beer's gone flat.)