I want to make it very clear I am not comparing Scotland to Pistorius in any other way than people having ill-informed opinions. To my knowledge Scotland hasn’t shot someone, planned or otherwise, and claimed it was an accident.
I don’t suppose anything is different about events unfolding this week. It has just seemed like people are having very strong opinions about things they probably don’t know too much about on my social media timelines. As well as some people clearly knowing their onions having opinions, which I am unreservedly in favour of.
I definitely think the trial of the South African athlete who shot his partner seemed like it was heading to a guilty verdict. Because I’d seen about 40 minutes of news coverage in the last year – including footage of him ‘looking guilty’ sat in court.
A lot of people seemed to think he was definitely guilty. I think this was because we had heard (some) evidence he was a violent man. And a woman was dead. I am on the bus of people who don’t like hearing that someone has done violence on another person. But I heard second-hand reporting of this for like four minutes. The trial was a lot longer (I think, I can’t be bothered checking – maybe it was just four minutes of someone saying he was a bastard who had been violent to women).
The other thing people are expertly talking about is Scotland. Much like the previous topic, I don’t really know that much about it. Both sides seem completely convinced they are 100% correct. Both sides seem contemptuous of the other side’s conviction. This merely makes the whole debate characteristic of any political decision. But it doesn’t exactly make for the best outcomes.
Democracy can be a brilliant thing. But when a polarised decision needs to be made the debate becomes a series of polarised issues. And I don’t think reality is a series of polarised decisions.
There are a lot of passionate intelligent people on both sides, who know lots about it all. Surely the well informed yes people are more correct than the mis-informed no people? And vice-versa? Or does the informedness not matter? It’s democracy. One person, one vote. What a terrible system when expressed in its base form. Or a brilliant one, depending on your opinion.
I don’t have a vote and so is not having an opinion OK? I am inclined to say Yes has to be the answer. If only because some of the rhetoric and messages, with attempts to manipulate economic pressure, from Cameron’s crew has made me dislike DC a little bit more.
My favourite piece of journalism I’ve seen on the whole thing was on The One Show, a feature about what UK will be called now (the UK? just doesn’t include Scotland anymore?) and saying that a suggestion was Former UK, I’m hoping it was a clever joke. I am ill informed on the name of lands and what rules there are – but I am prepared to put the opinion out there: Former UK should be the only option for this sceptered isle’s name if Scotland votes Yes.
Accordingly The Sex Pistol’s album should be retroactively named Anarchy in The Former UK. And UKIP should naturally become FUKIP.