BETTER OFF TOGETHER BEING WORSE OFF TOGETHER

One of the problems for "No" campaigners is that they have very little that is positive to advance as reasons for their argument.

I've no doubt that they feel what they feel with all their hearts, but therein lies the problem.  It's mostly sentiment and little logic that forms the basis for their arguments. 

Most of them, particularly Labour supporters, but increasingly Lib-Dems too have nothing good to say about the Tory dominated government in the UK, but they have to somehow make it sound better than a Scottish government, which might largely consist of their own people, without seeming to be anti-Scottish.

So it is little surprise they are left looking less than consistent in their arguments.

Poor old Alistair Darling found himself as a victim of this situation in two articles in The Scotsman yesterday. Darling, the ex-finance minister, warned in one article in the paper, that if George Osborne didn't change direction immediately, he would do immeasurable damage to the British economy from which it would not recover for many years. 

He painted a picture of a gloomy future and, given the unlikelihood that Osborne will follow the Darling plan for recovery, it seems likely that, if Darling is right, things can only get worse. 

Adding a measure of verisimilitude to Darling's predictions David Cameron himself has recently said he thinks that the economy won't start to get better before 2020, and he, after all, is unlikely to be painting an unnecessarily depressing picture of the future under his stewardship. 

A few pages later in the Scotsman, however, Mr Darling wearing the hat of the head of the 'Better Together' campaign appears to argue that Scotland would be better as a part of the United Kingdom, and therefore that it would be worse off with a (very possibly) Labour-led government in Edinburgh making decisions on the economy. 

Summing up his arguments, but 5 pages apart, it appears that Scotland will be better off as part of a state that is heading towards economic melt down and high unemployment, than being a country standing on its own with the chance of introducing economic policies tailored specifically to its needs.

It seems to me that that's a confused message to be sending out, and one which leaves one or the other argument ...or both, looking vulnerable.

I sympathise with his predicament. He has chosen to be,  or been pushed into being, the front-man for a campaign which seems to be Tory dominated, and thus far has been funded by donations from rich boys' dining clubs in the South East of England, at the same time as feeling that he has an obligation to attack the economic plans of the very people with whom he is teaming up.

Politics isn't always easy.

*******

I remember reading that the 3 unionist parties had chosen people to represent them as leaders of the Better Together Campaign. Alistair Darling was to represent Labour, and as the biggest unionist party would take the overall lead. Charlie Kennedy was to be the Liberal voice and Annabel Goldie, the Tory representative. Has anyone seen or heard of either of the other two?

Finally, seriously, who would you like to see leading Better Together? Alistair's position seems rather dubious (and always did). He may be Labour, but he's a tad pan loafy. Would someone a bit more down to earth, and less Morningside be more appropriate?