Wings Over Scotland

We checked with a few people on this one to make sure it wasn’t just us. Today’s Herald carries a story – by Magnus Gardham, no less – that on first glance sounds like good news for supporters of independence. But on closer inspection, it’s an incoherent jumble of word-noise that contradicts itself almost every paragraph. We honestly don’t have a clue what they’re up to over there.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’re not going to link to the Brian Wilson article which the Guardian unaccountably lowered itself to publishing yesterday. It’s embarrassing to see a still-widely-respected newspaper debasing its pages with the sort of swivel-eyed ranting you’d normally expect from a drunk shouting at a skip at 7am, which we can only assume the paper paid money for after LabourHame rejected it as being just too bitter and deranged.

One ugly little piece of innuendo is worth picking up on, though. With what’s the closest thing to subtlety in the piece, Wilson grudgingly concedes the SNP’s mandate to hold an independence referendum:

“The difference is that Scotland now has to answer a question which only a minority want to ask: ‘Should Scotland become an independent country?’ This is because, two years ago, 21% of Scots voted nationalist in the Holyrood elections, giving them an overall majority.”

Even in that tiny snippet there are several nasty little lies (nobody voted “nationalist”, for example – they voted for the SNP, which stands for Scottish National Party rather than Nationalist, and many did so despite opposing independence, just as tens of thousands of “nationalists” voted for other parties). But we’ll focus on the “21%” thing.

Read the rest of this entry →

FAO John McCormick

Dear Mr McCormick,

Last week you were widely quoted in the press on the subject of voters being informed in advance by both parties in the independence debate of the repercussions of their respective positions winning the vote. For example, your press release stated:

“The Commission has therefore recommended that the UK and Scottish Governments should clarify what process will follow the referendum, for either outcome, so that people have that information before they vote.”

Although your words seem clear to me, they seem not to have been understood by the No campaign. Ruth Davidson and Alistair Darling, for example, have both in recent days indicated their refusal to detail any proposed new devolution settlement, should Scotland reject independence, until AFTER the referendum.

Ms Davidson went so far as to suggest in one TV interview that she thought your comments meant people were unsure whether there would still be a UK Prime Minister after a No vote, and whether UK laws would still apply. As it appears extremely obvious that the “default” position in the event of a No vote would be that everything stayed the same as it is now, it seems unlikely that those were in fact the questions your respondents were asking.

But as we were not privy to your testing, we don’t know specifically which information voters were requesting be made available to them. I wonder, then, if it might be possible for you to issue some clarification on the matter, at least in broad terms.

A great many members of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments were extremely vociferous before the publication of your report in insisting that its recommendations be followed in full by all sides. It would perhaps therefore be valuable if you could be more specific about what sort of information your quote above referred to.

Thanking you in advance,

Rev. Stuart Campbell

Read the rest of this entry →

One of the main reasons we started Wings Over Scotland 15 months ago was a recurring frustration at the Scottish media’s constant failure to represent our views. Time after time we’d sit watching the TV with our blood pressure rising, shouting “Why aren’t you asking this CLEARLY lying idiot the staggeringly bloody obvious question that anyone with a IQ higher than a badger’s bawbag would be asking?” at the screen until the neighbours started banging on the wall again.

We’ve come a long way in 15 months, and we can at least now draw a sizeable audience’s attention to such unasked questions. But the phenomenon hasn’t lessened any, and last night’s Newsnight Scotland provided a textbook example.

Read the rest of this entry →

We know the No campaign is dead set against entering any discussions before the independence referendum, but we were so moved by Willie Rennie’s concern today about Scotland not having enough time to “negotiate over 14,000 international treaties“ in the 16 months between a Yes vote and the first elections to an independent Holyrood that we thought we’d help him out a bit with some advance work.

We did enquire of Mr Rennie as to where these “14,000 international treaties” could be found, but he was too busy helping poor people by fining them £80 a month to answer. Luckily, alert reader Angus McLellan was hot on the case, and swiftly directed us to a handy Foreign Office website featuring the magic number.

We’ve now had a brief skim through some of the UK’s historic agreements with other countries, and to save some time after 2014 we’ve knocked a few off the list.

Read the rest of this entry →

Unionists often like to talk about independence in terms of a “divorce” to try to tug at our heart strings and make us feel like we’d be leaving a much-loved partner. The implication, of course, is that divorces are always bad, with losers on both sides.

They get very huffy when independence supporters suggest that it’s more like an abusive marriage, despite our relationship with England being far more like Stockholm Syndrome than they would like to admit. (Something their own “it’s a big, bad world out there, you’ll never survive without us” rhetoric suggests is the case.)

But if we take the metaphor of the United Kingdom being a marriage at face value, then what kind of marriage is it? And more to the point, is it worth saving?

Read the rest of this entry →

Since we’re on the subject of Willie Rennie, we may as well have a look at the comments he’s made today in response to the Scottish Government’s publication of its “transition” plans in the event of a Yes vote. A clearer, more dispiriting example of the “We cannae dae it, Cap’n!” mentality would be hard to find.

“Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie insisted today that the SNP has “hopelessly underestimated the scale and complexity” of the task ahead.

“They would have to negotiate over 14,000 international treaties, a currency, the division of assets, membership of NATO and the host of international organisations,” he said.

“To say they will bang all this through in just 16 months is absurd. This will give most people in Scotland the shivers and fuel suspicion that the SNP are just making it up as they go along.”

Now, “making it up as they go along” is a pretty strange reaction in the first place to someone publishing a detailed planning document almost TWO YEARS ahead of the time it would be needed. But let’s humour the poor man and glance through his terrifying list of impossible tasks.

Read the rest of this entry →

This is “No” campaign director Blair McDougall, telling lies:

“There’s one thing that’s absolutely certain – if the nationalists get a Yes vote, Scotland will be leaving the UK and so we’ll be leaving the European Union.”

That’s a lie, isn’t it, Blair? It couldn’t possibly be any more clearly a lie. Nobody actually believes that Scotland will “leave” the European Union as a result of a Yes vote. No matter how much they deliberately spin, misrepresent and mislead about the EC President’s comments, nobody honestly believes that there will be so much as a single solitary day on which Scottish people are not EU citizens. (Unless, of course, they choose to stay in the UK and the Tories then take the whole UK out.)

Even the feeble semantic-hairsplitting defence that an independent Scotland might for a split second technically “leave” the EU while negotiations over the precise terms of membership were concluded and amended is anything but “absolutely certain”. Such a scenario is, in fact, a hugely unlikely, but strictly speaking astronomically-small theoretical possibility, so irrational that a lunatic might clutch desperately at it. Either way, we would in every meaningful sense remain in the EU.

The only absolute certainty here is that Blair McDougall is a liar.

Alex Salmond’s appearance on Scotland Tonight this week raised an issue we’ve been meaning to address for a while, so let’s do it now before we forget again.

Of the numerous polls of the last few months, the most encouraging for supporters of independence was the one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times in late October. It showed a pretty tight race at 37% Yes to 45% No, but the most interesting aspect was how the numbers changed when voters were asked for their opinion in the hypothetical scenario that they expected the Conservatives be returned as either a majority or coalition government at the 2015 Westminster general election.

In that scenario, independence leapt ahead with a massive 10% swing, to lead by 52% to 40%. But much less reported by the media was another finding of the poll.

Read the rest of this entry →

1. Scottish Labour says universal free bus travel for pensioners is unaffordable.

2. Scottish Government manages to reduce the cost of universal free bus travel.

3. “CUTS TO CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL WILL HIT HARD-WORKING SCOTS”

4. Repeat ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

There’s very little room for ambiguity in the Electoral Commission’s request that both sides in the independence debate provide voters with information in advance of the referendum about the likely consequences of either a Yes or No vote. Here’s how the Scotsman reported their comments, for example:

“In a surprise recommendation reflecting widespread public confusion over the choices on offer, the commission said that the UK and Scottish government should try to ‘clarify’ the situation by seeking agreement on ‘how any competing claims made about independence during the campaigns would be resolved’.

The same clarity should be offered on events after a No vote, it said. It proposed that ‘both governments should agree a joint position, if possible, so that voters have access to agreed information about what would follow the referendum’.”

In the case of (what we’re finally now able to officially call) the No campaign, that only means – indeed, only can mean – one thing. After all, their platform is the status quo. In every immediate respect, the consequences of a No vote will be that nothing changes, so nothing needs explaining. There is but a single exception.

Read the rest of this entry →

Scottish Government proposals for regulated referendum spending limits:

YES side: £1,250,000
NO side: £1,500,000
(advantage of £250,000 to NO campaign)

Electoral Commission recommendations for regulated referendum spending limits:

YES side: £2,994,000
NO side: £2,931,000
(advantage of £63,000 to YES campaign)

Oh no! It’s another defeat for the SNP!

Read the rest of this entry →