I hope this answers your query

Never stronger time to feel furious as a voter than when pointedly told that the MSP hopes a quite long full reply answers you, and of course it does not. Because amid the effusion of other details making the reply look fulsome and worked on, your actual question has not been answered. That is spivvy. It must never slip past your notice.

Nowhere does the following reply from Colin Keir, SNP, say that qualifying applications for citizenship by descent WILL NOT BE REFUSABLE. NOWHERE. So you would have to be easily led to be shifted from voting No by this reply:

" You ask specifically about the matter of citizenship and seem to be, rightly in my view, concerned about the impact on immigration and citizenship of the UKIP agenda being followed by the Westminster focussed parties. As an SNP MSP I support an inclusive Scotland that as an independent nation will seek to welcome those who want to come to Scotland to contribute and be part of our society. As a country with an aging population Scotland needs to attract working age people to become citizens and contribute to the national economy. Therefore the Scottish Government proposes the following should the electorate vote for Independence in September,

An inclusive model of citizenship – current British Citizens habitually resident in Scotland will be considered Scottish citizens; others, following independence, can apply on grounds of descent if they have a parent or grandparent who qualifies for Scottish citizenship; those with a demonstrable connection to Scotland through living here for at least 10 years; migrants on qualifying visas will have the option of applying for naturalisation as a Scottish citizen. The Scottish Government will accept dual citizenship; indeed this is common in the current situation with many people throughout Scotland and the rest of the UK holding dual citizenship. There will still be the situation where nationals of other countries come to Scotland and do not take out citizenship here as is the case at present they will be covered by visas and treaties allowing them to live and work here.

I hope that this reply answers your query. "

As regards my effort to extract an answer about unrefusable citizenship through the campaign registering system, he has defined the system to avoid that. Though the question was about campaigning for a No vote unless a change on the citizenship position happens:

"Campaign groups will define where they sit in the debate (Yes or No) based on their desired referendum outcome. While there may be policy differences within the various groups that make up either side they will have chosen to support Yes or No as their preferred future for Scotland. If an organisation is not campaigning straightforwardly for a Yes or No vote I would not expect them to have to register with the Electoral Commission. For instance there will be a number of organisations that have views on the matters raised and will take part in discussions and debates but will not campaign for one side or the other."

What a way to run a railroad to London

Oh no they don't mean anything they say, they mean what I want them to say. Whatever I want it to be that they said, of course really they said it, just TRUUUST me and take it from me, you don't need to actually listen to their words saying the opposite.

You can't go through life communicating like that. It's unconvincing and silly. it's wishful thinking. I don't like what someone said so really they meant the opposite, really they meant what I wanted them to say - consider how that works out - no more toys means more toys, no consent to sex means consent to sex, we voted Yes but it means No. IT DOESN'T WORK. Would you buy a used car on that basis?

The referendum has become a shambles and tragedy. Alex Salmond, who called it, has determined on the following tragicomic place in history. He will go right up to poll asking you to vote for a statement of faith that his silly unionist idea that contradicts independence, currency union with the country you are leaving, you can ignore the No clearly given to by the entire political class of Britain and believe what the cheery salesman wants them to say. He's not going to railroad them.

This is the Yes campaign that is so caring about our ordinary lives it has not answered about the issue in the last post, the citizenship of Scottish exiles who can't return before indy day. On the Facebook Yes pages you can read yeards and yards of emotionalism about a great natiomnal moment to seize.

To continue the Clearances' logic by the moral obscenity of taking automatic citizenship away from some Scots, to make indy a way of shutting our door in some of our own people's faces, to want to tie us to the austerity programme through servitude to the Bank of England without a say over it, to call for an extra year of Tory government instead of the next British election on time during the indy process, to shut his eyes and make this ridiculous spivvy assertion that we can take his word that 3 parties don't really mean they won't do what he wants, and what he wants is unionist anyway.... WHAT WAY IS THIS TO RUN A YES CAMPAIGN?? A unionist, implausible, ludicrous, people betraying, spivvy way. AAAAAAAAAAH. If there was any national opportunity moment it's this SNP leadership who threw it away.

The sensible non-SNP wings of the Yes campaign who never wanted a currency union now need to split with Salmond and his train crash of nonsense.

trust a journalist?

Joyce Macmillan is no star of positivity in referendums. It was me whose letter against her chairing of the Edinburgh launch of the Yes-Yes campaign in 1997 was published headed "Worse than Westminster?" in Charter 88's journal Citizens, an edition from early 1998. Frustrating it is no longer online to link to, it was once, since Charter merged into Unlock Democracy. She slapped down speakers who made any point from their personal life experience in support of the campaign and proposing the campaign could use their point. She showed she just wanted it to be an elite class's safe controlled campaign pushing out anything so unpredictable as real life.

Already before this, at a day event by Oxfam in 1996 that she chaired, when I raised the constitutional case against rent and mortgages she chose not to make the 2 politicians beside her (Menzies Campbell and George Foulkes) respond to it on grounds that "I don't think anyone know what you're talking about" without making any opening for me to explain in full where it comes from so that she would know what I was talking about, and without expressing any concern that her newspaper colleagues had not made it known to her.

Within this year she was writing in her column that a No win is inevitable and getting cornered by electoral luck into holding the referendum at all was tragic for the SNP. But last night she was on Newsnight, with a totally changed position, saying the No campaign is too negative about the country's virtues and predicting that if it continues their support will evaporate, i.e. a Yes win. This from a position of declaring as Yes-inclined now herself.

This is selective. It should follow equally that Yes support will evaporate if that campaign continues not taking voters seriously:

• by having policies that require the agreement of some party outside our new state, Britain or the EU, that has already said it won't agree.
• and By spivvily not responding to enquiries for clear positions on items like the citizenship item raised here already.

If we are just faced with 2 spivvy campaigns both messing us around and not addressing details seriously, the winning side may be the side of not voting at all.

twin dilemma

A Better Together paper just came through my door, a lot of its content over several pages focused on British overlapping feelings of nationhood. It's good that after the White Paper they are seeing a chance to force the campaign's emotive level to start focusing more on that question. Among all the to and fro claims about economics there had seemed a risk of both sides slipping past us the due focus on this basic fairness question of making sure you get to belong to your own home. With the Yes side being slippery and spivvy on the issue, will it take the No side's pressure to make them address it more properly?

But will voters notice how selective the No side is being? They mention a lot about how many folks in the British countries are from each other's country. They select to mention nothing at all of the same about EU countries - when exactly the same arguments apply to them.

They feature a Scottish father who was born in exile with a family with a multiplicity of births, and they quote figures for how many folks in Scotland were born in the rest of Britain and vice versa. But this statistic is misleading, if you are a Scot who was born in the rest of Britain there is every good chance you disliked your exile and are pleased to be home, it does not make you necessarily want to keep the Union at all. Only if there is a weakness on the Yes side here, only if there are enough holes in their citizenship policy to cause there to be any exiles whose return to Scotland independence could make harder and any less of an automatic right, should this No argument have any effect. At present, after the shambles of the White Paper contradicting itself on citzenship and being full of gobbledygook about forbears and where they lived on independence day and its unclairty on where to deem thast they would have resided if they had not died, the Yes side is choosing unecessarily to be weak enough on this issue to constitute a betrayal of Scottish history, and deserves to have the No side attack on this. But our EU citizen residents don't deserve to be put in more danger, by it, of right wing British nationalism turning on them after Scotland fails to vote itself out of that process.

They feature a family with twins born on each side of the border because of the circumstances when the mother's labour began during as journey. It's an excellent case study against birthplace racism, the evil of all bigots who would deem these twins to belong to different countries if they don't personally identify so. It's morally right that it should turn anyone against loopholes in the citizenship policies, on both sides. But what is the No side's answer to the case, you could have just as easily, of twins born one in Britain one across the Channel? Do they agree with their own argument's implication that we should not vote to belong to a country that leaves the EU in an ugly mood of nationalist racism?

But we ain't falling for a mystery tour to nowhere

Let's at least join with Salmond in saying nobody is going to swallow from Cameron a meaningless lure with no content, vote No then gamble on what I might do by surprise. We remember what happened when Home said exactly this in 1979: his word broken by Thatcher and 20 years of nothing. It's not devo max he's promising, that is all he has told us about it. It's some undisclosed mystery less than that. Proper salesmen show us the product before we pay, and proper customers don't buy spivvy noncommittal mysteries whose details they are not told.