Wings Over Scotland

It’s possible to watch video footage of Nicola Sturgeon’s speech to the Holyrood chamber on Thursday (and the debate following it) online, but it’s rather difficult to find the text in searchable form. The only place we were able to locate it took some advanced-level Googling to find and was behind a paywall, so we’ve reprinted it below for reference, because we’re about to cite it in another article.

Read the rest of this entry →

We suppose we really ought to start saying “British nationalist”, but it’s a bit long.

We’ve found that “answering a different question to the one you were actually asked” is something of a Unionist specialist subject – Alistair Darling gave a masterclass in the strategy on today’s edition of the Daily Politics. Still, you heard it here first, folks.

The anti-independence campaign and the Scottish media have been loudly affecting great triumph recently over a rather curious claim. Namely, they’ve been insisting the Scottish Government’s acknowledgement that it would be required to negotiate the terms of an independent Scotland’s membership of the European Union represents some manner of U-turn on an alleged previous assertion to the contrary.

(Ken MacIntosh, for example, tells the chamber at 21m that the SNP “has finally admitted that the terms of Scotland’s EU membership are a matter of negotiation”.)

Let’s examine the reality.

“Choosing Scotland’s Future” was the title of a Scottish Government document published in 2007 as part of what the SNP called the National Conversation. Clause 3.18 on page 22 reads as follows (our emphasis):

“Negotiations would also be required concerning the terms of Scotland’s (and the rest of the United Kingdom’s) continuing membership of the European Union and other international bodies to which Scotland currently belongs as a component nation of the United Kingdom.”

Clause 3.21 on the next page continues (our emphasis again):

“An independent Scotland would continue in the European Union and bear the burdens and fulfil the responsibilities of membership. Following negotiations on the detailed terms of membership, Scotland would be in a similar position to other European Union member states of a similar size.”

Well, that seems to wrap that up.

We’re hoping to get a spot of Christmas shopping done today, assuming that we can un-freeze our front door, so here’s a few bits and bobs worth reading while we’re out.

Some sage advice for the First Minister from Iain Macwhirter

A sane analysis of the EU situation from Dr Daniel Kenealy

An informative but admirably concise assessment of the UK economy by Terry Smith

The baffling mystery of how City Parking manages to lose vast fortunes in Glasgow

Tavish Scott offers his view of independence campaign funding

Back soon, apocalypse permitting.

What with all the hoo-ha about what Jose Manuel Barroso did and didn’t say about membership of the EU this week, we decided – what with being proper journalists and everything – to take matters into our own hands in an attempt to get to the truth. Caroline Winchester is the European Commission’s Press & Policy Officer at its Scottish office in Edinburgh. We emailed her directly yesterday. (Emphasis added.)

Read the rest of this entry →

Herald reporter Gerry Braiden posted these tweets last night:

We’ve contacted him asking if he has any more information, to which he replied “checking now”. It remains to be seen if the threatened protests will materialise, but in the meantime an alert reader uncovered a story from the Sunday Herald in 2001, in which the then-Grand Secretary of the Grand Orange Lodge in Scotland claimed that the British-nationalist organisation would turn itself into a paramilitary terrorist one if Scotland ever achieved independence.

You can read the full original story here. [Alternative link.]

The Irish Times, 26 November 2012:

“The DUP will campaign against Scotland voting for independence in 2014, party deputy leader Nigel Dodds told his party’s annual conference on Saturday. The North Belfast MP said that Unionists watched with sadness the attempt by Scottish nationalists to “undo the bonds of union which bound us through history”.

“But just as we have advocated the Union here in Northern Ireland, so we will be the advocates for the union in the midst of a Scottish referendum. Just as we have been proved right here, so, I believe, the people of Scotland will see that we are better together, better when we are united as one,” said Mr Dodds.

“This party believes strongly that, together, the United Kingdom has significant influence in the world. The break-up of the Union would be financially, culturally and politically devastating for all of the British people. As Unionists we oppose any action that would erode the shared cohesion of the constituent parts which make up this kingdom,” he said.”

Yes. We saw you “advocating the Union” last week.

Read the rest of this entry →

The modern Scottish independence movement is 84 years old, dating back to the 1928 formation of the National Party of Scotland, forerunner to the SNP. It is a peaceful, inclusive, civic and democratic movement – to the best of our knowledge, and almost uniquely, not a single life has been lost in pursuit of Scottish independence.

Despite this, so-called “Unionists” (more properly described as British nationalists) still regularly try to portray independence campaigners as violent racists. As recently as a few days ago, one prominent Labour activist frequently employed as a commentator on BBC Scotland political shows attempted to perpetuate baseless (but oft-repeated by Unionists) 70-year-old smears that the former SNP leader Arthur Donaldson was a Nazi sympathiser engaged in attempts to collaborate with the Germans during WW2, sabotage the British war effort and set up a Vichy-style government in Scotland. These claims were cited, astonishingly, as evidence of “the SNP’s fascist past”.

Such attacks are all the more bizarre given the constant reminders on the news that the only nationalists attempting to secure their goals by violence in the United Kingdom are those who do so in the name of Britishness, waving the Union Jack.

Read the rest of this entry →

If there’s one thing we all ought to grudgingly respect about the No campaign, it’s its ability to get all its ducks in a row and pump out an absolutely united and consistent lie. It’s a lot like a World War 1 artillery barrage – impressive in the sheer co-ordinated brute force of its display, even if it’s in fact completely useless in achieving its desired objective and ultimately leads only to a slaughter of its own troops.

Jose Manuel Barroso must be marvelling at it today. Time after time after time he’s quite unmistakeably said “I am NOT referring to Scotland, I’m talking in generalities”, only for the British media to report it, with a single unified voice, as the EC President making clear and specific proclamations directly about Scotland.

Read the rest of this entry →

Just one plucked from a fine crop of halfwits on Tory MP and former minister John Redwood’s blog. A warm welcome, readers, for Mr Bert Young. (We’ve tidied up some of his formatting for him a bit – no spaces before punctuation marks, Professor – but the comment is otherwise presented unedited and in its entirety.)

“A part solution to the SNP’s position is to bring the N Sea oil ashore in England! Extending the pipe work and off-loading the ships South of the Border is a simple matter and would bring home the message to the SNP that Scotland simply cannot afford to be “independent”. The N Sea Oil is owned by International organisations and not by Scotland; its source is in British and International waters. The SNP ‘s case is completely demolished unless they explain how they are going to pay off Scotland’s rightful share of the National Debt and maintain the sort of life style they have been able to enjoy under the UK umbrella. I cannot believe that any rational thinking Scot would want to support Scotland withdrawing from the UK.”

Better together!

Unionists are very excited this afternoon about the latest development in the EU membership debate. A BBC interview with European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso repeated the assertion (or rather, the deduction from an implication) that an independent Scotland would have to apply for entry to the European Union as a new state. We’ll limit ourselves to a few factual observations.

Read the rest of this entry →

There’s a remarkable consistency from defence experts when it comes to the question of the relocation of the UK’s nuclear “deterrent” in the event of Scottish independence. Time and again, when anyone who isn’t a politician is asked the question, they give the same answer: it can’t be done.

The latest is Sir David Omand, a man described by the Scotsman today as “Tony Blair’s spymaster”. The former head of GCHQ offered the view that “I don’t see a feasible alternative site at reasonable cost. My fear is that it would precipitate the UK out of the nuclear business”, adding his weight to an opinion previously expressed by the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Lord West and other “senior military sources”.

That opinion is curiously at odds with that of most Unionist politicians – particularly Labour ones who insist that independence would merely move Trident “a couple of hundred miles down the M74” and therefore not make any significant contribution to global nuclear disarmament (and therefore be pointless). It’s easy to see why they would make that claim while trying to defend the Union. It’s rather harder to see why the various defence experts would have to gain from lying about it.

More remarkable still, though, is the second part of the Scotsman’s piece on Sir David, in which he’s quoted by the paper as saying “it should be made clear to Scots that before any referendum that the government of an independent Scotland would be forced to cover the cost of any removal of Trident.”

It’s a suggestion rather akin to if you’d let someone park their car on your driveway as a favour in return for them occasionally picking up some shopping for you in it. Then you decide you’d rather rip up the driveway and have a nice front garden (and get your own shopping in future), but your acquaintance demands that YOU pay to have the car towed away and to build them a new garage to keep it in.

We don’t think those negotiations would last long, do you?