If you were wondering why we hadn’t written about today’s oil-industry shenanigans yet, it’s because we’ve been scratching our heads for hours trying to work out what the heck David Cameron thought it was he was proving on the Cabinet’s trip to Aberdeen.
Sadly, we’re still none the wiser.
(An update on this post.)
If the next Ipsos MORI poll shows a significant drop in the No lead, we can probably call that definitive. The days of the No camp being 30+ points ahead seem to be well and truly over. Five out of the seven British Polling Council members polling on the independence referendum now put the required swing for Yes at just 5-6%. Looks like Wings pollsters Panelbase were at the cutting edge again after all.
The Scotpulse poll we mentioned last night in a frankly shameful outbreak of tooting our own horn actually released two sets of data, accompanied by an odd email apologising that the survey had featured an overly wide range of questions. We don’t know if we’re going to see the others at any point, but the second one released yesterday was intriguing.
And we’re not talking about the somewhat leading preamble.
A reader comment this morning caused us to go back and double-check the facts in an old post (which turned out to be entirely correct, so that was fine). But for reasons which will shortly become clear, Wings Over Scotland is on a constant mission to distill aspects of the independence debate down to the clearest, most concise summaries possible, and the act of checking spurred us to lay something out.
As alert readers know, we don’t get ourselves overly excited about individual opinion polls, even when they’re like today’s Survation one showing a big 5.5% swing to Yes in the wake of George Osborne’s intervention on a currency union last week.
What we DO like to ponder is the more interesting data buried in such surveys.
Alert readers may recall a piece from earlier today in which we mused on the curious and perhaps unique unwillingness of the people of Scotland to seek more powers over their own lives. It was in part triggered by a curious moment from last night’s BBC Scotland independence debate from Kelso in the Borders.
A gentleman in the audience had asked the assembled panel of politicians “what they understand by the word ‘nation’, and which nation or nations do you belong to?”, and Labour MSP Jenny Marra’s reply was illuminating and perplexing in equal measures.
One way or another, pretty much the entire history of mankind has been that of a struggle for power. Whether military conquest to secure resources, religious crusades to impose ideology or the fight for individual human rights, people across the globe have constantly striven for power over themselves and each other, and do to this day.
Scots seem to be the only exception.
Some recent comments of mine about how the UK government and European Union wouldn’t – because they couldn’t – strip citizenship from anyone in the event of a Yes vote in the independence referendum brought dissenting responses on Twitter from a few folk who certainly know a thing or two about government.
Their primary arguments were so weak, though, that coming from such able individuals they exemplified how much the establishment is being forced to state obvious untruths in defence of an otherwise perfectly legitimate line of argument. But does politics really have to be this dishonest?
Actually, now that we come to examine it in detail, this one’s quite special. We think EVERY single sentence in the official No campaign’s latest mailshot might be a lie.
Let’s step through it and see if they’ve really pulled off a hundred-percenter.
As we’ve noted before, the Independent is by a large distance the most English of all the UK’s “national” newspapers. Alone among its peers, it has no Scottish edition, no Scottish news section, no Scottish editor, not even a full-time Scottish correspondent. It struggles to shift 3,000 (not a typo – THREE thousand) copies a day in Scotland.
So if we were conducting a panel debate about Scotland on a news channel, we’re not sure that the paper’s chief political commentator Steve Richards is the guy we’d call for expertise. But the BBC, bless it, has other ideas.
That notwithstanding, today’s edition of Dateline London was an interesting watch. Correspondents from the USA, China and Greece, and host Gavin Esler, offered some largely insightful comments, only occasionally interrupted by Richards butting in in a desperate attempt to get the discussion back on the standard UK-media line.
The Scottish and UK press has been packed solid for the last 48 hours with strangely uniform assessments of how George Osborne has conclusively smashed the Scottish Government’s position on an independent Scotland’s currency.
We’ve offered our own analysis, and various politicians and professional activists on the No side have been pouring ugly, borderline-xenophobic scorn and sneering on other nations which use some of the alternative options to a formal Sterling union, which is usually a sure sign that they’re scared of something.
So it seemed worthwhile to collect together the views of some proper financial experts in one place for handy reference, because the cosy consensus in the UK media doesn’t seem to be reflected by people who actually know what they’re talking about. Read the rest of this entry →
In our public-funded role of monitoring the Scottish and UK media, readers, there is but one major frustration. Time and again we find ourselves figuratively – and occasionally really – screaming at newspapers or TV screens, unable to understand why we’re the only people who can actually hear what politicians are saying.
In a world full of seasoned political reporters, it seems inconceivable that we’d be the only people who understand their special language of evasion and obfuscation and code, yet over and over, journalists and broadcasters seem unable to pick up on comments that couldn’t be any clearer if they were written out in neon tubes, taped to a hammer and smashed into the interviewer’s face.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
