Wings Over Scotland

As lovers of a good stat-wade ourselves, we’re liking this terrific piece by Celtic Quick News detailing the amount of money that Rangers FC’s “financial doping” has cost the other Scottish Premier League clubs over the last decade-and-a-bit. We highly advise reading it all, but the headline is that the Ibrox side has effectively stolen a minimum of £49m, a statistically most-probable £69m and a maximum of £224m from the other 11 teams currently in the SPL, as well as further sums from teams since relegated.

For us, though, the most striking figures can be found in the detailed breakdowns, where you’ll notice certain figures crop up over and over again. The direct immediate cost (in lost SPL sponsorship and TV money) of relegation to the SFL Division 1, for example, can be seen to be £765,000.

But the real eye-opener comes if you look at the sums involved in dropping down one league place. We’ve mentioned it in previous pieces, but laid out in stark black-and-white numbers it shows just what a crooked deal the non-Old-Firm SPL chairmen lumbered their clubs with when, blinded by short-sighted greed, they collaborated with Rangers and Celtic in setting the league up as a cosy permanent duopoly:

Loss from finishing 2nd rather than 1st: £340,000
Loss from finishing 3rd rather than 2nd: £935,000
Loss from finishing 4th rather than 3rd: £170,000
Loss from finishing one place lower, 5th-11th: £85,000

Ouch. Were the premium for a 2nd-place finish to follow the pattern of the rest of the distribution, it would be just £255,000. Or put another way, the SPL is basically an agreement to give Rangers and Celtic £680,000 a year each, on top of the regular prize money, simply for being the Old Firm.

Since all but one SPL season has seen the two Glasgow clubs take the top two places, the league prize-money distribution alone has ensured that the other 10 clubs fall further and further behind every year, by roughly the amount needed to pay the salary of one international-class player.

(It comes out fractionally over £13,000 a week, a sum exceeded by only a couple of Rangers’ biggest stars before their in-administration pay cuts, which are about to end. It’s the same as the average wage for an English Premiership player at the mid-point of the period analysed by CQN.)

Over the 11 seasons of Rangers’ alleged EBT improprieties, that of course adds up to a complete international-class side, which the other SPL teams have in essence paid the wages for (with the additional millions brought in by annual Champions League participation providing the transfer fees), guaranteeing that Rangers continued to beat them, secure one of the two top spots and perpetuate the cycle.

(A grossly-unbalanced state of affairs which makes it all the more astonishing that Rangers STILL felt the need to cheat by robbing the taxpayer, and just about everyone else as well, in order to spend even more money.)

Remarkably, it seems from their comments to the media so far that most of the SPL chairmen will be minded to vote in favour of continuing this slow suicide, out of fear that the alternative could somehow be worse. We hope that New Rangers will at least have the courtesy to pay for the cranberry sauce.

We stumbled across this old quote from a Daily Record interview with Ed Miliband earlier while we were doing something else, and we hadn’t heard it before. It’s from just after he was elected Labour leader, and it struck as us a little odd. See if you agree.

“Asked if he planned to move Britain to the left, he said: “I think that those labels don’t help. That is not the way I would see my leadership. It is not about some lurch to the left, absolutely not. I am for the centre ground of politics but it is about defining where the centre ground is.”

Ed joked his famous Marxist intellectual dad Ralph Miliband would not recognise him as a left-winger.”“

If you’ve just found yourself thinking “If you don’t have any plans to move Britain to the left, then WHAT THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU DOING AS THE LEADER OF THE LABOUR PARTY, YOU SIMPERING NEO-TORY HALFWIT? WHAT IN GOD’S NAME IS THE LABOUR PARTY FOR IF IT’S NOT TO MOVE BRITAIN TO THE BLOODY LEFT?” then don’t panic, gentle viewer – you’re not alone. God help us all.

There can surely have been no real doubt that the SFA was going to (at least) uphold the ban on Rangers registering any new players for a year. Having just published a 63-page dossier setting out in meticulous and crushing detail the severity of the club’s crimes, the Association would have set some sort of world record for “All-Time Largest Rod For Your Own Back” had they then backed down on the punishment.

What occurs to us, though, is that the upholding of the ban makes it considerably more likely that a Newco Rangers (which has to be the only plausible future – a CVA is purest delusional fantasy) will be admitted directly to the SPL.

The league’s nightmare scenario is New Rangers winning the title in 2012/13, because then they really will be seen to have gotten away with everything. If the club is forced to field a team of old journeymen and fresh-faced teens that gets a lot less likely, and the gutless SPL chairmen will probably feel that the Ibrox side will be sufficiently humbled by a few seasons of mid-table finishes that their own clubs might just avert a disastrous boycott from angry fans, while still clinging onto the Sky Sports deal.

We’re not sure they’d be right in that assumption, but we suspect it’s one they might make anyway, and that tonight’s events will strengthen their belief in it. Time will tell.

We’ve noticed, and perhaps you have too, that things have been very quiet on the “positive case for the Union” front recently. (Partly, we suspect, because the constant hooting of nationalists over its continued absence was starting to become so loud and embarrassing that even the Unionist media couldn’t keep ignoring it.)

Ever since David Cameron visited Scotland in February and mumbled some vague platitudes about maybe getting more powers someday if we voted No in 2014, Unionists seem to have given up on even promising a “positive” case and have concentrated more doggedly than ever on the blood-curdling scare tactics that they’re much more familiar and comfortable with.

(Recent weeks have delivered a particularly fine crop, which can be concisely and accurately summed up by the sentence “Vote Yes and Scotland will be blown up by terrorists and bombed by England, then everyone left will die of cancer.”)

We’ve spotted a couple of stray mentions – neither of which, it probably goes without saying, go on to actually offer the positive case they cite – but nothing very significant:

“Although Unionists seem to find it difficult to articulate a positive argument for union, Scottish nationalists are not afflicted by the same inhibitions.”
(Colin Kidd, The Scotsman, 15 May 2012)

“It’s our job to drown out [Alex Salmond’s] separatist rhetoric with a positive case for keeping the Union intact.”
(Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Conservative Party chairman, 23 March 2012)

That was until today, however. Our regular bout of hope-over-expectation Googling threw up a site called “Free Advice For Unionists”, in which someone by the name of Rob Marrs who lays claim to no fewer than THREE nationalities (Scottish, English and British) boldly attempted to go where no Unionist had gone before.

Read the rest of this entry →

The sheer speed and barely-concealed enthusiasm with which Scottish Labour has reverted to its true neo-liberal type given even the slightest sniff of any kind of electoral success has been startling. Having gained a few dozen seats, almost all from the Lib Dems, in the council elections, the party has lurched back to the centre-right positions it occupied before the 2011 Holyrood parliamentary election, having abandoned several of them in the run-up to that vote in a desperate attempt to avert defeat.

We’ve already seen Johann Lamont doggedly refuse to oppose the renewal of Trident, and Glagow council leader Gordon Matheson prepare to backtrack on years of anti-sectarian progress by allowing the Orange Order to greatly increase its toxic presence on the city’s streets (a prime example of the Bain Principle at work, in the wake of the SNP’s controversial Offensive Behaviour At Football Act – if the SNP are taking steps to tackle sectarianism, Labour must take steps to encourage it, however insane that is or whatever their previous policy might have been).

And last week we saw a party whose 2011 manifesto opened with the dire warning “Now that the Tories are back” take every possible opportunity to jump into bed with the Tories in councils all over the country, giving the lie to the constantly-pushed official media narrative that the SNP and Labour are two near-identical centre-left social-democratic parties separated only by their disagreement over independence.

(Since the constitution is outwith the remit of councils, you might therefore imagine that Labour-SNP coalitions would be the norm all over the country, aimed at fighting savage Tory cuts together while Holyrood argues about the referendum, but Labour seems far more concerned with battling the nationalists rather than the right-wing Coalition and its increasingly discredited austerity programme.)

So perhaps nobody ought to be surprised that at the weekend Johann Lamont decided to test public opinion by suggesting that Scottish Labour – which is currently strangely at odds with the UK party on the subject – might once again abandon its opposition to university tuition fees.

Read the rest of this entry →

We don’t know if anyone still reads the BBC’s “Blether With Brian” column since the Corporation banned Scottish readers – uniquely in these islands – from posting comments on it, nor can we normally think of a reason why anyone would. It’s generally the blandest-possible summary of events people have already seen for themselves, with no effort to impart any sort of insight or analysis.

However, once in a while the understated approach yields a more profoundly powerful result than screeds of polemic, and we can think of no way to better illustrate the bizarreness of Johann Lamont’s chosen line of attack at yesterday’s First Minister’s Questions than to simply relate the events as they transpired, in the most neutral and factual manner, as the national broadcaster’s Scottish political editor does today.

“How to decide who has won an election? The customary method is to count the ballot papers – and to award victory to the one with the most votes. Now the Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies adds a degree of sophistication to that. But, still, the spoils tend to go to those with evident popular support.

This, apparently, is an old-fashioned outlook. Just so Twentieth Century. At Holyrood, Labour’s Johann Lamont suggested another test might be used instead. The SNP, she said, might have won the council elections “on the arithmetic”. But “on the politics” they “got stuffed.”

It is difficult to be entirely certain, but I suspect that most political leaders would probably settle, on balance, for winning “on the arithmetic”.“

Stranger still was Brian’s citation of Fat Les in support of his assertion, but other than to wistfully dwell for a moment on our long-held dream of Scottish fans repurposing the song in question with the words “Irn Bru” replacing the title, we’ll let that one pass.

Alert readers may have noticed a certain undercurrent of cynicism about the Scottish political media in this blog on occasion. But now and again you have to put all sarcasm aside and take your hat off to a professional who bangs the nail straight in with one swing of the hammer. Today it’s Iain Macwhirter in the Herald, who thankfully seems to be returning to form after his Murdoch-inspired red mist of recent weeks.

“‘It’s the big question of separation,’ said the Stirling Labour group leader, Corrie McChord, when asked why he was unable to form a coalition with the SNP – a party which he accepted had almost identical social policies to Labour.

Now, I may be missing something here, but I wasn’t aware that Stirling Council was in danger of separating from the United Kingdom. Why the independence referendum should have had such a decisive bearing on who runs council refuse and leisure services in Stirling is not entirely clear. Perhaps Labour believe the Nats will put something in the water or plant separatist propaganda in the wheelie bins.

Whatever, it seems that Labour think they have more in common with the party that wants to privatise most council services than the party that wants to use them as a bulwark against the austerity plans of, er, the Conservative-led Coalition in Westminster.”

We couldn’t have put it better, or more concisely. As Labour chum up with the Tories across the country (Edinburgh looking like being the sole honourable exception), and the Glasgow party prepares (as widely rumoured by SNP supporters a couple of days beforehand) to set the Orange Order loose on the city’s streets in gratitude for their help, we can’t help but ask the hundreds of Labour activists whose efforts secured the party its better-than-expected result last week: “Is this what you worked so hard for?”

A&E departments all over Scotland were reportedly swamped by spinal-injury cases yesterday, resulting from the nation collectively falling off its seat in surprise as the Scottish Affairs Committee of Westminster MPs concluded that the SNP’s proposed referendum question (“Do you agree that Scotland should become an independent country?”) was biased. The committee, headed by delightful Labour MP Ian “I only meant I’d assault you physically, not sexually“ Davidson, decided after consulting a carefully-chosen panel of “experts” that a question posed by an SNP government might just be designed to increase support for independence.

We jest, obviously. In fact it’s not entirely unexpected that such a conclusion would be reached by an all-Unionist committee of Westminster MPs who would all lose their £200,000-a-year jobs in the event of a Yes vote and who are currently engaged in producing a document called “The Referendum on Separation for Scotland“. (No, we’re not kidding – it’s really called that, and therefore clearly an entirely neutral and impartial investigation.) But there’s an interesting angle to the committee’s findings that inexplicably doesn’t get a lot of media analysis.

Read the rest of this entry →

It’s been interesting to watch how the mainstream media position on last week’s council elections has shifted over the last couple of days. The instant narrative was that of a huge victory for Labour and disappointment for the SNP, as noticed by Mark MacLachlan over on The Universality Of Cheese. All the papers proclaimed Labour’s holding of Glasgow as the key story of the day (reducing the rest of Scotland to the catch-all “elsewhere“), and contrasted it with the SNP’s underachievement, despite that even on Friday it was apparent that the nationalists had won majorities in two councils and increased its total number of councillors significantly.

Most of the media chose to run with a set of misleading figures first produced (we think) by the BBC, which showed that Labour had made the most gains, and by Saturday that spin had turned into outright lying. A fascinating piece on Newsnet Scotland revealed that the BBC’s figures ran contrary to the Corporation’s own official guidelines on how election results should be reported.

Over the weekend, angry nationalists kicked up a loud fuss over such chicanery (though in fact, this blog had called it around Friday teatime), and as a result subsequent coverage of the elections has adopted a markedly different tone. Even the Scotsman was forced to admit, albeit extremely grudgingly and piling on caveats, that in fact the SNP had won the popular vote for the first time ever. Over in the Herald, meanwhile, Iain Macwhirter performed a remarkable 24-hour “reverse ferret”. First the commentator penned a Friday column headlined “SNP in a spin” and talking of Alex Salmond’s party suffering “a huge psychological blow”. The very next day, though, another Macwhirter column, headed “The SNP won it“, included this line:

“the local elections were in no way a disaster, or even a setback for the SNP”

The second column explicitly (if grumpily) noted the angry nationalist reaction to the previous day’s print and broadcast coverage. For all the opprobrium so often directed at the “cybernats”, it’s hard to dispute their influence in keeping an unwilling and hostile media at least partly honest. By swiftly disseminating accurate counterpoints to Unionist spin, they make it far harder for that spin to maintain traction.

Read the rest of this entry →

Over the last couple of years, I've been regretfully forced to the conclusion that feminism is the most intolerant ideology currently operating in the UK, leaving ultra-radical Islam trailing a distant second and looking on angrily. Disagree with the orthodox-feminist position on any gender-related subject, in even the most minor of ways, even if you're agreeing with the base principle, and you'll be first shouted down, then called a misogynist and/or "rape apologist" or similar, and then censored out of the debate entirely. (All three often occuring within the space of a few minutes.)

Veteran WoSland viewers may recall the Cara Fiasco, or the interesting "Dickwolves" discussion of last year, but by way of a milder illustration I present a recent Twitter exchange with "rebelgirl59", who appears from her comments to be some manner of activist for the Scottish Socialist Party. (Twitspeak tidied up, otherwise unaltered.)

Read the rest of this entry →

If they spend any amount of time browsing through Wings over Sealand, alert readers may well find themselves noticing a number of recurring themes popping up throughout its pages, and one of the commonest is a violent contempt for nearly all videogames journalism. This is because, not to put too fine a point on it, nearly all videogames journalism is a crime against humanity. (Either in the literary, ethical or sociological senses, and usually all three.)

Practiced largely by cynical-yet-incompetent careerists who regard themselves as essentially the games industry's door-to-door salesmen – rather than as a safeguard standing between the industry and the public, protecting consumers from wasting their money on terrible products – the dismally low standard of nearly all videogames journalism was and remains the reason why your correspondent felt the need to take the job on for himself, so that at least on occasion it might be done halfway-properly.

And if the 21-years-and-counting career that followed that decision isn't a reason to hate videogames journalists, then this reporter doesn't know what is.

Read the rest of this entry →

If you’re pushed for time, we’ll give you the answer up front: when it’s in the Scottish media. But a closer analysis of yesterday’s and this morning’s press and broadcasting provides a full and and illuminating picture of the reality. The fact is, the nationalists aren’t paranoid – their own country’s media really is out to get them.

Those of us watching events unfold yesterday afternoon were a little bemused when various sources started tweeting summarised results, which showed Labour as the biggest winners. To anyone comparing the results to those of the last election, those gain/loss figures were perplexing. Set against 2007, the SNP had gained 61 seats, not 57, and Labour just 46 rather than 58. (In both cases almost entirely at the expense of the Lib Dems, who lost nearly 100 seats. Hardly any seats anywhere in the country changed hands directly from Labour to SNP or vice versa.)

We couldn’t at the time, and we still can’t now, find any published record of where the numbers for the second interpretation derive from.

Read the rest of this entry →