220 People Attend David Cameron “Rally for the Union”. 68

According to staff at the Dewar’s Centre in Perth – capacity 1,000 – the attendance at David Cameron’s “Rally for the Union” today was just 220. Even the ultra-Tory Dundee Courier only claimed 300.

That the Prime Minister of the UK cannot fill a hall, at least to not embarrassingly empty, at an event billed as a “rally” to “save” his country, at which he stated that to lose the referendum would “break his heart”, is astonishing.

Even more astonishing is the body language of his supporters. Look at the faces behind him in this BBC video. Have you ever seen a body of people look less enthusiastic about anything? Had they been instructed that they must at all costs look sullen and unpleasant? What on earth can be the explanation?

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

68 thoughts on “220 People Attend David Cameron “Rally for the Union”.

1 2 3
  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Now the Presidents of the Royal Society, the British Academy, and the Academy of Medical Research have apparently been dragooned into writing The Times, claiming that funding of research risks being hurt if the Yes vote succeeds, and there should be a discussion to mobilize the silent majority against it.

    Wonder if they had any discussions with their members before making the pronouncements,

    Looks like the UK establishment is panicked over the No vote failing.

  • Ba'al Zevul (Chimp Assassin )

    The US citizenry is very well-armed as you know, and it’s not without cause. The UK has such proscriptive laws on firearms, it seems quite unnecessary.

    That cause you speak of – wasn’t it so the citizenry had some means of opposing an unjust government? Though it seems a little out of date considering the overwhelming superiority over the citizenry in arms and training enjoyed by the US forces.


    “Well regulated Militia..” is the push behind an armed citizenry, Ba’al. It’s interpretation is bandied about, but the idea that government should fear the People, rather than the reverse, is the impetus behind the declared paranoia. I call it awareness, as my paranoia has served me well in many instances.

  • Jon

    I agree with David that robust debate is important and would be good for everyone voting. One of the things I’ve admired about the Yes part of the blogosphere is that it has switched on a level of political engagement that is missing from most people’s experience of political discourse. Suddenly, ordinary people are knocking on doors, handing out leaflets, feeling energised, going to meetings and debates, feeling like they can make a real difference.

    I’m on record here as being in favour of independence, even though I don’t live in Scotland and I can’t vote. I think the centre of Scottish political is more charitably-minded than it is in London, if not exactly Left, and thus I think they will resist privatisation in health and education in a way that England sadly will not (yet, at least).

    However, I’ve been thinking about what will happen after the vote. In the last few weeks I’ve become more hopeful of a Yes vote (and the bookies’ odds earlier look good) but, of course, the No vote may yet prevail. It will be decided by the large block of ‘undecideds’. If No wins, how shall the Yes/progressive voices respond? Of course in the short term, they could make use of the new powers promised by the Westminster parties, if they materialise – that would be a small positive result. But they need to steel themselves for bad news, else a good chunk of the left will be so dispirited it could drop out of politics altogether. The level of engagement of progressive voices is great, and it is important not to lose that, even if Scotland does not become independent.

  • Ba'al Zevul (Chimp Assassin)

    here in the Highlands we now have police routinely patrolling the streets of our towns with hand guns on their belts.

    Wonder what the good folk of Dunblane think about that.

  • lysias

    I think the thought behind keeping the U.S. citizenry armed is that, if the government becomes tyrannical and citizens start attacking government forces with small arms, some of the government forces will come over to the rebel side with heavier arms.

  • Ba'al Zevul (Chimp Assassin)

    So a US Spring is assured by the Constitution, eh? I guess the Southern Baptists will have to be the Sunnis in that scenario…thanks, Lysias 🙂

1 2 3

Comments are closed.