We all know that #BetterTogether's #indyref argument comprises scaremongering and negativity. Right? Well, not really. Both SNP/#YesScotland and #BetterTogether have a positive message when it comes to arguing that voters should back them. However, they also use negativity when talking about their opponents. Sadly, this is how politics works.
What is different about #indyref is that SNP/#YesScotland have been allowed to answer reasonable arguments by simply accusing their opponents of scaremongering. Although this makes life easy for them, it is lazy and does not inform the debate. Three examples:
- When Duncan Smith said an independent Scotland would have to raise taxes or cut services to afford current welfare spending levels, Sturgeon could have explained how he was wrong, but instead she accuses him of "blatant scaremongering".
- When Angus Robertson is asked about the impact of independence on the defence jobs he could have explained how his defence plan would support jobs in Scotland, instead he simply says it's "a scare story".
- When Asda’s chief executive confirmed that being part of the UK keeps costs down, Salmond could have made a counter argument, but instead he accused Asda of "ridiculous scaremongering".
Scaremongering in its true form has no place in politics. Parties, employers, experts and the public have the right to ask questions without being shouted down by people who are trying to hide the truth.