Wings Over Scotland

A surprise development today, as the moribund and long-neglected LabourHame website sprang suddenly back to life with its fourth post in as many months. And what a stirring comeback it was, as the party’s Shadow Secretary Of State for Scotland Margaret Curran launched into a vitriolic diatribe awkwardly entitled “Absurd to claim a separate Scotland would continue to be part of Britain“.

(There was plenty of room left in the headline to turn the car-crash grammar into English, for example by prefixing it with the words “Why it’s”.)

The centrepiece of the article’s argument was Curran’s unequivocal assertion that “Britain is the country we live in, not the island it exists on”, which is a claim only slightly spoiled by being completely factually wrong in every respect. Rather than waste all afternoon explaining why, we’ll just quote the Wikipedia entry and let you get on with your day. If you’re really pressed for time, you can stop after the first sentence.

“Great Britain or Britain (Welsh: Prydain Fawr, Scottish Gaelic: Breatainn Mhòr, Cornish: Breten Veur) is an island situated to the northwest of Continental Europe. It is the ninth largest island in the world, the largest European island, and the largest of the British Isles. With a population of about 60.0 million people in mid-2009, it is the third most populous island in the world, after Java and Honshu. Great Britain is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands and islets. The island of Ireland lies to its west. Politically, Great Britain may also refer to the island itself together with a number of surrounding islands which comprise the territory of England, Scotland and Wales.

All of the island is territory of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and most of the United Kingdom’s territory is in Great Britain. Most of England, Scotland, and Wales are on the island of Great Britain, as are their respective capital cities: London, Edinburgh, and Cardiff.

The Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the political union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland with the Acts of Union 1707 on 1 May 1707 under Queen Anne.”

You’d hope someone aiming to be the Secretary of State for a part of somewhere would at least have a grasp of the most rudimentary geopolitical facts about it, but nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of Scottish Labour.

We would be lying if we said we were surprised by Johann Lamont’s line of attack at today’s First Minister’s Questions, but “dismayed, disappointed and depressed” would be a fair enough summary. With her finger as ever on the pulse of what really matters to the Scottish public, for some reason the Labour quasi-leader chose to repeat last week’s bewildering and incomprehensible assault about the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the Bank of England. (Possibly because it garnered her some rare good press from the Unionist section of the Scottish media.)

The situation is in fact a straightforward one, which Lamont and Labour are doing their best to complicate and obfuscate in furtherance of their own agenda. The Bank of England – which despite the name is the central bank of the United Kingdom – is an independent body, and has been since Gordon Brown surrendered Government control of it in 1997. While the Treasury retains certain emergency powers, in all normal circumstances the Bank’s activities in respect of the UK’s monetary policy are determined by the MPC, which has no Government representatives on it.

(A minority of the committee’s members – four out of nine – are appointed by the Treasury, but are all external, non-political advisers.)

The SNP’s policy is that an independent Scotland would negotiate as part of the independence process a Scottish voice on the MPC (presumably an appointee along the same lines as those of the Treasury), given that Scotland currently “owns” 8% of the BoE. At present there is nobody on the Committee specifically tasked with representing the interests of Scotland, which is an entirely unsurprising and unsinister state of affairs – as a UK body, the Bank’s responsibility is to the UK as a whole, and at such times as Scotland’s interests might conflict with those of the wider UK, the Bank’s duty is clearly, quite properly, to act in the interests of the majority at all times.

Johann Lamont, and the Unionist cause in general, has gleefully seized on an uncharacteristically sloppy choice of words by Nicola Sturgeon during BBC Scotland’s “Big Debate” last month, in which she presented Scotland’s future representation on the MPC as axiomatic rather than merely a goal. Scottish representation on the Committee would in fact be the realistic and reasonable outcome of any independence negotiations, given both Scotland’s part-ownership of the bank and the simple realpolitik of the economics that would arise from the dissolution of the Union, but it’s clearly not a done deal and Sturgeon was careless to present it as one.

Nevertheless, that does nothing to obscure the inherent disingenuousness and dishonesty of the point Lamont has spent two FMQ sessions clumsily attempting to make. The fact is that Scotland has no form of representation now on the MPC, and (more crucially) as we noted two paragraphs above, the MPC has no duty to consider the impact of its policies on Scotland specifically – indeed, if anything it has the opposite responsibility. So even in the worst-case scenario of failing to secure any representation, Scotland would be no worse off independent than it is now.

Equally crucially, and more pertinently to what passes for Lamont’s argument, the same thing applies to the Treasury. In all situations, the duty of the UK government is to the whole UK, not to any individual region of it. Regardless of the nationality of a Chancellor Of The Exchequer, if faced with a decision where the interests of Scotland and those of the wider UK were to be somehow mutually exclusive, it is ALWAYS that Chancellor’s duty to decide in favour of the UK.

Once again, there is nothing evil or wrong about this. For as long as Scotland chooses to remain inside the Union, its national interests will and must rightly be subordinate to, and subsumed within, those of the UK. Lamont’s insistence that Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling or any future Scottish-born UK Chancellor would ever abdicate their responsibilites and act against the interests of the UK simply because they happened to be born in Scotland is insulting both to the men in question and to the intelligence of the nation. (It also borders on racist, but we’ll let that slide for now.)

By definition, then, Scotland CANNOT possibly have less influence over its monetary or fiscal policy should it become independent than it does within the UK, because it currently has – and must have – none at all. It is, not for the first time, embarrassing to watch Lamont peddle this fatuous, mendacious drivel on behalf of the ever-shrinking proportion of the Scottish people who still vote Labour. They deserve better.

Ed Miliband, the nation was famously told a while back, “gets” Scotland. The Labour leader has done his damnedest to prove that assertion wrong ever since, first telling Scots that they were simply a stepping stone in getting Labour back into power at Westminster – helping the Scottish party to its disastrous defeat in 2011 as a result – and then not being able to remember the names of the Scottish Labour leadership candidates, despite there only being three of them, a few months later.

(To be strictly fair to Miliband, he did also show some perceptive insight in April 2011, noting that “I think people are really focusing on this question: who do you want standing up for Scotland against the Conservative-led Government in London?” just before the Scottish electorate delivered their crushingly unequivocal answer.)

“Definitely not Red” Ed’s latest brainwave to win over the reluctant voters of Her Majesty’s Great Empire Of Britain (Northern Administrative Region) is to tell Scots it’s not just up to them to decide whether Scotland becomes independent or not. Doubtless inspired by a ComRes poll in today’s Independent showing just 30% of English and Welsh voters want Scotland to leave the Union (far fewer than most previous surveys), Miliband will today tell a London audience that England “must have its say”. What isn’t clear is what he actually meant by that.

Read the rest of this entry →

At least, that’s the impression you’d get from today’s Guardian. Not one but two pieces by Severin Carrell are both illustrated with pictures of the Deputy FM this morning – one in front of a Saltire for good measure – with very little justification to be found in the text below.

The first piece, which is prominently displayed on the front page of the Guardian website doesn’t even feature a quote from the Health Secretary – she gets just a single passing mention in the fourth paragraph – while the second at least does include a couple, but not until seven paragraphs in.

You can’t avoid pictures of Sturgeon whichever of the paper’s four articles on the outbreak you choose – every single one has her image on either the story or itself or the “related” column, sometimes doubled up. It’s clear that the reader is meant to associate the outbreak with Sturgeon, and while it’s a slightly more nuanced approach than Carrell has adopted previously, there’s no mistaking the intent, especially when it’s backed up by innuendo from reliable Labour rent-a-quotes:

The first case of Legionnaires’ Disease in Edinburgh was identified on Sunday, and the 16 cooling towers thought to be responsible were discovered and sterilised on Sunday night and Monday morning, despite the public holiday. We’re not sure how much more rapidly Lord Foulkes imagines the Scottish Government could have acted, but with the help of friendly media the subtle smear will seep out anyway. The Scotsman’s first “SNP accused” headline can surely only be hours away.

I was scurrying around in the WoS Archives this evening looking for something else, and I stumbled across this. It’s a piece from April 2000 for now-defunct games-industry trade paper CTW, in which I interviewed Andy Smith of Future Gamer, the email magazine that eventually evolved into GamesRadar.

Marvel through your tears, viewers at the eerily accurate foretelling of the state of games journalism that was about to unfold.

Read the rest of this entry →

The independence referendum is roughly two and a quarter years away. (Remember how recently it was two and a half? Time flies when you’re having fun.) But two things that could happen within the next three weeks could do more to decide it than a thousand embarrassing TV “debates” or multi-million pound campaigns. For those of you in the heretic camp, we apologise in advance, because to find out why we’re going to have to talk about football some more.

This week sees the announcement of the final 18-strong Team GB football squad for the Olympics. We’ve already looked at the potential implications of any Scot featuring in the selection, although to be frank with just 18 players to be chosen we’ll be surprised if any make it on merit anyway, never mind the politics of the situation.

The other thing happening this month, of course, will be the SFA Appellate Tribunal’s reassessment of the club’s punishment on charges of bringing the game into disrepute. Or at least, it might – according to the Herald, Rangers haven’t yet ruled out a further appeal to the Court of Session:

“Rangers welcomed the verdict that the SFA were not in a position to hand down a signing embargo but may yet appeal the decision to return the case to the Appellate Tribunal, believing the case should instead be judged by a panel at the first stage of the process.”

It is extremely difficult to overstate how much such a course of action would enrage FIFA, who are already furious that civil law courts have been involved in the case at all rather than purely sporting ones. Were the Ibrox club to be insane enough to engage the CoS a second time, the international body would be likely to impose savage sanctions on the SFA, which could very well include the banishment of the Scottish national side from competitions.

The phrase “90-minute patriots” was coined as a slight on Scottish people whose sense of national identity was restricted to the duration of football matches. Nonetheless, there are a great many such people. This month, Team GB and Rangers FC between them could set in motion a chain of events which will bring about the end of Scotland as a footballing nation. In our view, such a scenario would turn the polling figures for the referendum round overnight. We’ll be watching with interest.

There’s a famous scene in the first Indiana Jones film where our hero, faced with a swordsman performing an elaborate duelling ritual prior to an anticipated bout of formal combat, simply pulls out a gun and wearily shoots him. (Inspired, no doubt, by the legend of the Gordian Knot.) We’re feeling a bit like that this morning as we peer into the bewildering, constantly-shifting looking-glass that is the affairs of Rangers FC.

Either of yesterday’s events would have been enough to try to untangle by itself, but the two smashed head-on into each other and created a grisly heap of tortured, twisted, smoking metal that’d take half a Scottish fire brigade all day to separate into identifiable components, and with about the same chance of anyone walking away intact. But we’re so stupid we’re going to have a go by ourselves. Read on, if you dare.

Read the rest of this entry →

Well, it’s safe to say it’s all kicked off big-time today, with not one but two massive developments in the Neverending (Rangers) Story. Firstly, you can read the entire CVA document for yourself here. But these are the bullet points:

1. The £8.5m Charles Green and his consortium (“Sevco”) intend to fund their purchase of Rangers with is in fact a loan, to be paid back (with interest) by 2020 [Section 4.20], despite Green’s previous pledge to run the club “debt-free”.

2. According to the BBC, Duff & Phelps’ fees during the period of administration to date are £5.5m, leaving just £3m in the pot for the creditors.

3. Highly unusually, the proposal doesn’t actually specify a percentage creditors will be paid. But Rangers’ current debts are in the region of £55m, meaning the maximum payout to unsecured creditors will be slightly over 5p in the £. The actual figure is impossible to gauge, as the CVA proposal document is full of unknown sums marked “TBC”, such as the amount owed to Craig Whyte. [Schedule 8]

4. Should Rangers lose the Big Tax Case the debt will at least double, but is widely thought likely to increase by even more, taking the total to around £150m. This would reduce the maximum payout to unsecured creditors to 2p in the £.

5. Should the CVA be rejected by creditors, Green has a contractual obligation to purchase the club’s assets for £5.5m (presumably again in the form of a loan, though this isn’t explicitly specified) and liquidate it, saving himself £3m. [Section 4.23] By coincidence the purchase price is exactly the sum quoted by the BBC for Duff & Phelps’ fees, leaving precisely £0 in the pot for creditors.

6. The creditors therefore have a choice between accepting a maximum of 5p in the £ (but likely much less than that), or getting nothing at all.

More coming as we unravel it. All we can say is that in a world where Robert Mugabe is about to be made a UN tourism ambassador and the head of the IMF doesn’t pay any tax, the notion of a bankrupt football club with £50m of unpayable debt and up to £100m more hanging over it BORROWING the money to pay off its creditors – by offering them an unspecified amount somewhere between almost zero and actually zero and expecting them to willingly agree to the deal even when one of them is the nation’s taxman – suddenly doesn’t seem all that insane by comparison.

Read the rest of this entry →

Okay, we’ve steeled ourselves. We’re going back in. In this feature we’re going to attempt to pick out the few interesting snippets that could be gleaned from the abysmal shambles of last night’s referendum debate, because underneath all the juvenile squabbling and monkey applause there were a couple.

Don’t believe us? Put your foot through the telly after 20 minutes? Read on.

Read the rest of this entry →

The Scottish media’s response to Friday’s launch of the Yes Scotland campaign in an Edinburgh cinema has been, as you might expect, extensive and varied.

Some of the coverage was dismayingly predictable, some of it rather more surprising.

Read the rest of this entry →

If you’ve been reading this site for a while, you could be forgiven for thinking that the “positive case for the Union” was some sort of mythical beast, akin to the fabled unicorn. But that’s not quite the case. It did once exist, many moons ago, but has since become extinct – a victim of an ever-changing world where it was unable to compete and it couldn’t adapt to its new environment, thereby spelling its doom.

So just what was the positive case when it existed? Let’s find out.

Read the rest of this entry →

We had a brief and dispiriting Twitter exchange this week with a prominent Scottish Green activist (if there can strictly be said to be such a thing), in the shape of the party’s former head of media James Mackenzie. The discussion was sparked by a piece in the Guardian reporting the Green leader (sorry, “co-convenor”) Patrick Harvie’s dire warning to Alex Salmond against a “bland, middle-of-the-road” prospectus for independence, which he suggested would risk “alienating” the left-leaning section of the Scottish public (ie most of it) and thereby losing the referendum.

Wading in with our trademark gentle, reasoned tact, we recited our well-worn observation that referenda are for deciding single precisely-defined issues – in this case, who gets to elect the future governments of Scotland – rather than the fine details of multiple policies, and that starting the Yes campaign off by emphasising our differences perhaps wasn’t the smartest move.

To this Mr Mackenzie accused us of having “confused policy with constitution”, and while we won’t bore you with the he-said-we-said in too much depth (you can go and track it for yourself if you really want to), the conversation took in the comradely and left-wing-solidarity-building, if somewhat distant from reality, assertion that “the Green Party make Salmond look like Thatcher“ before culminating in this rather huffy tweet:

Now, the obvious thing that might strike a passer-by would be that the Greens appear to be massively overplaying their hand from the off. They might claim their complaints are about a “democratic” process, but they speak for just 4% of the Scottish electorate, and even among those backing independence they’re a tiny (9%) minority. Democracy has spoken already, and it wasn’t for the policies of the Greens.

(Nor those of the Scottish Socialist Party, who have also offered the media a chance to portray division in the Yes camp over their policies that an independent Scotland must be a republic rather than a monarchy, and be outside of NATO – although the latter in fact remains SNP policy too anyway.)

Clearly, none of that means that they need to shut up and just go along with what the SNP says – the whole point of independence is to give us the chance to debate every aspect of Scotland’s future. But demanding to have all these fights now is wrong in principle as well as pragmatically. We’ll come to the pragmatic part in a moment, but let’s take the moral high ground and examine the principle first.

Read the rest of this entry →