I'd like to say a big thank you to BBC News 24 for mentioning the fact that the SNP conference was taking place today in Inverness.
Of course I don't know what they covered earlier on, but I watched the headlines at 8pm tonight and they mentioned that Alex had acknowledged in his speech that many Scots had shown interest in "devo max" or "independence lite". And that was the all the coverage. The government of one of the constituent nations (the only one to be a majority government) was having its conference and the BBC acknowledged it was happening. Stop.
Thank goodness there isn't a special tax to pay for this BBC thing... oh, yeah, I forgot. There is. About three Bank of England pounds a week we pay to be neglected.
Anyway, I've heard a lot of unionists tittering about the SNP has gone soft; it knows it can't manage without the mother of the empire to keep it afloat; it knows it needs a subsidy from hard working English taxpayers (Boris), and the brains of people like George Osborne, Tessie O'May and William Hague.
Well people who take that view will likely be voting for the union anyway, so it won't matter. But it may occur to the more cerebral that the true reason for offering a third option is exactly what the SNP has said it is.
Polls seem to show that the majority of Scots want that option on the referendum.
I don't want it. Not for a second.
It would leave England in charge of our foreign policy and our defence. So we'd off to bomb more Muslim nations with oil, as we have been doing for the last 10 years and more. Scotland doesn't need folk like Ten Pints Hague representing us abroad, and we definitely don't want to continue to be represented in everything at Brussels by English Ministers who have no responsibility for, knowledge of, or interest in, Scottish affairs.
Nope, I don't want it, but a lot of Scots do.
It's maybe hard to believe that a political party could be in touch or listening to what people want. It's certainly not what we are used to. In England they have had a listening exercise on the NHS this summer, and having listened, they appear to have heard very little of what anyone has been saying.
A few months ago we had a referendum in the UK organised by the Tories and the Liberals. It offered two choices for UK voting methods. A vast number of the population wanted neither of these choices, but great interest had been expressed in a third. The third, however, would have seriously reduced the number of seats gained by the two big London parties, and so the third was not allowed. In short Cameron rigged the referendum to get the answer he wanted.
And of course we discussed (above) the lengths that Dave is going to to subvert democracy on Europe. He clearly thinks we're too stupid to be trusted to make informed decisions. Just like I think he's too stupid to make informed decisions.
My point is that we are not used to politicians who accept that it's the people who should decide these matters, and if a large number of them give a preference in polls (which the parties are perfectly prepared to quote when they show what they want them to show) then that preference should be on the referendum paper.
So did it ever occur to the titterers, I wonder, that that is why the SNP wants the third option on their referendum ballot paper? Probably not, and if it did it wouldn't make a good story anyway.
Here endeth the lesson.