Politics can sometimes be confusing. So let's look at the current David Cameron v Alex Salmond spat as if they were gang members arguing over territory.
DC -- Ok, Big Man I agree with you after all. You can have a referendum when you want, minus the 16 year-olds (but come on you don't really care about them) and I agree – we should only have one question. That is what you want isn't it.
AS -- Well yes Posh Boy – we want independence. But supposing other people want something in between?
DC -- Ah that's OK. If they vote no, in between will come later. Maybe. The important thing is clarity, clear choices, removing uncertainty da de dah de dah….
AS -- Well strangely, posh boy, I agree with you. If in betweenies vote no to independence we'll also count that as yes for more powers… as soon as you like. Wee Labour Johann and Libdem Willie think the same.
So why not just put it on the ballot paper?
DC -- No – how could we? There can only be one question because the important thing is clarity, clear choices, removing uncertainty da de dah de dah….
Aye right. Strange isn't it – everyone fancies Devomax, the strangely named option sitting in the corner -- but no-one will officially ask her up to dance in the name of clarity. So she'll be stuck on her bahookey for the next two years. Don't ya just love democracy?
Interestingly though after Cameron's speech yesterday no-one (except Ruth Davidson) thinks the status quo is good enough – but IT remains on the ballot paper. So let's just recap. David Cameron wants clarity. So he's offered a third invisible question in the Indy Referendum that reads;
Do you want me to consider giving you some powers I cant name at a time I can't specify ..but later? Mmm. Does he have a giant pet rabbit called Harvey?
Guardian column here….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/16/david-cameron-union-speech-comment
Comments