Wings Over Scotland

We’ve noticed a recurring theme in the Secretary of State for Scotland’s speeches in recent months. Eschewing the line favoured by Labour and the Tories that the countries of the Union are “stronger together, weaker apart“, Michael Moore has come up with his own subtle twist on the theme.

“[the single energy market] is a positive example of why we are stronger together and poorer apart.” (3rd March 2012)

“Now, more than ever, this unity is important to protect us as individuals. In short, we are stronger together, and poorer apart.” (30th January 2012)

“This government believes passionately in the United Kingdom. It is a relationship which provides strength and security for all of our citizens – we are stronger together, and poorer apart.” (17th January 2012)

“We must show – we will show – that the nations of our country are stronger together and poorer apart.” (21st September 2011)

“My congratulations go to Johann Lamont on her election as Scottish Labour Leader and to Anas Sarwar on his election as Deputy Leader. I wish them well for the future. I am sure that in the months and years ahead they will add their strong voices to those already making the case that the nations of our country are stronger together and poorer apart.” (17th December 2011)

It’s an interesting angle. We can only assume it’s one Moore has been frantically trying to drum into the public’s mind because he knew the GERS report for 2009/10 was due to show the exact opposite – that Scotland contributes more to the UK’s finances than it gets back, as it has done for years, and that therefore it would be richer as an independent nation even before factoring in any policy changes an independent Holyrood might make (eg saving billions by scrapping Trident and PFI).

We’ll be watching closely to see if Moore keeps punting the same line now that the figures comprehensively disproving his claim are out.

(You’ll see what we did there in a moment.)

Speaking as someone with a certain amount of experience in the field of polemic – and with the death threats, internet hate campaigns and Daily Star doorsteppings to show for it – this writer is always a little disappointed when grown adults fail to grasp how the concept works. We must, I regret to say, begin with the dictionary definition:

polemic (noun)
a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something: his polemic against the cultural relativism of the Sixties [mass noun]: a writer of feminist polemic
(usually polemics) the practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute: the history of science has become embroiled in religious polemics

Joan McAlpine MSP is rapidly proving herself a subtle master of the form. Writing a new column for the red-top tabloid Daily Record (read, and this isn’t a coincidence, predominantly by Labour voters), she’s immediately got the FUD camp fumingly a-flutter with her debut piece, an interesting analogy comparing the Union to a marriage in which the husband jealously controls the purse strings of the household.

At this point, readers, let us diverge for a moment to offer a professional tip derived from over 20 years of experience. The art of the polemic – at least when deploying it in the manner of the second definition above – is to say something that isn’t actually offensive, in a way that sounds as though it is. With luck, your “mark” will spot a trigger word and immediately embark on a furious kneejerk whinge, having not bothered to actually read the article in question properly or establish any context.

In such a manner can you, for example, gather 30,000 complaints about a comment nobody with even the most basic functioning brain could possibly have misinterpreted – indeed, which the perpetrator both immediately before and immediately afterwards specifically said did not in any way represent his real views.

And what’s the result? The wider public – which didn’t go looking for offence and was therefore able to rationally and calmly see that there was none to be had – just thinks the complainers are cretins and invariably develops a certain sympathy with the perpetrator, even if they weren’t necessarily favourably inclined towards them in general. Jeremy Clarkson gets paid a lot of money, and not by accident.

Most normal people – a grouping which excludes most of us politics nerds – are sick of the modern outrage culture (a relatively new phenomenon facilitated in large part by the internet), in which someone somewhere can be relied on to be offended by anything, and where barely-sentient idiots demand compensation and/or legal remedy for their hurt feelings or the fact that they were too stupid to realise that coffee is generally served hot and is best not poured directly into your lap. Nobody loves a moaner, and especially not a thick one trying to start a storm in an empty coffee cup.

We’ve never met Joan McAlpine, but we promise you that as a professional journalist she knows that fact very well. We’re not even going to bother discussing the specifics of her Record column, because this blog has a pretty bright readership and we wouldn’t insult their intelligence. Let’s just say we’re not expecting either the SNP or the Record to drag her over any hot coals any time soon, okay?

WoS: Despite what the media would have you believe, independence isn’t a party political issue. A sizeable minority of SNP voters don’t back the policy, and many members of the other parties do, but the voices of either group are rarely heard. Andrew Page of the popular A Scottish Liberal blog is a proponent of “Home Rule”, and has kindly allowed us to reproduce this superb piece on the subject.

A few weeks ago I put together a draft topical motion with Derek Young on the issue of the party’s position on a second question in the independence referendum. My motivation for doing this was primarily to ensure that this issue is debated rather than being decided for the members by the party leadership. I was also concerned that the Scottish Liberal Democrats can campaign positively during the independence referendum, that we seize the best opportunity in decades to achieve our vision for a constitutional settlement and simultaneously ensure that the Home Rule Commission has some purpose other than cynical opposition to the SNP.

Read the rest of this entry →

So that’s where Johann Lamont’s been hiding all this time. Evidently she was holed up somewhere learning her speech to the Scottish Labour conference off by heart, and she demonstrated the fact by rattling the whole thing out in practically a single breath. There was barely a gap left for the party faithful to applaud in, though they dutifully roared with laughter at a succession of limp anti-SNP jibes.

In fact, most of the speech was devoted to attacking the SNP rather than putting forward any positive ideas. The word “Salmond” appeared more times in the text than “justice”, “fairness”, and “jobs” put together, and by a distance at that. (“Socialism” and “Miliband” both scored zero.) It was a safety-first, preach-to-the-choir speech from a leader making her debut in the position, and who it’s probably fair to say isn’t a natural orator. But it’s hard to see who it would appeal to outside of the Caird Hall.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’ve run this graph before, but in the light of Ed Miliband’s speech to the Scottish Labour conference yesterday it bears repeating. Labour’s newest line – a subtle play on the party’s traditional “too wee, too poor, too stupid” gambit – is to describe the UK as “the redistributive Union“. The twin intended meanings of the phrase are clear: Scotland can only survive if subsidised by the wealthy South-East of England, and a vote for independence is a vote to abandon England’s poor to the cruelty of the Tories.

It’s a powerful message (if not a particularly rational one – if we’re such subsidy junkies, aren’t we a burden on England’s poor?), but it’s also one founded on a gigantic and cynical lie. Firstly because, as this blog has previously discovered, Scottish votes almost never affect which party forms the UK government anyway. And secondly because even when the voters of England do elect a Labour government, the redistribution of wealth still only travels in one direction – from the poor to the rich.

The graph above, taken from independent monitoring group The Poverty Site and created from official UK Government statistics, shows the reality of the last 13 years of Labour government (shaded in grey). Over that period – including the time when Ed Miliband was Chairman of HM Treasury’s Council Of Economic Advisers – the gap between the respective shares of Britain’s wealth owned by the richest 10% of citizens and the poorest 10% significantly INCREASED in size, by around one-eighth.

Of course, when the Tories are in power the rate of increase tends to be slightly higher still, and not only from poor to rich – under the Tory administrations of Thatcher and Major, Scotland subsidised England to the tune of almost £30bn according to the UK Goverment’s own figures. Whichever of the London parties holds power in Westminster, though, the direction the wealth moves in is the same.

Ed Miliband does indeed represent a “redistributive Union”. He wants you to let him and David Cameron continue redistributing the UK’s money from poor people and Scotland to rich people and England. If that’s the future you want, then by all means vote No to independence. Just be clear what it is you’ll be voting for.

It doesn’t, of course. (We have it on good authority that the old-school-Tory broadsheet considers the Islamic-fundamentalist terrorist organisation to be “a bit soft“ on homosexuality.) But as a headline, our statement is every bit as valid as the ridiculous one the paper has rather embarrassingly chosen to run on its front page today.

“SNP backs ‘devo-plus’ for independence vote”, hollers the once-august organ, possibly causing more naive readers to imagine that the SNP might have backed ‘devo-plus‘ for the independence vote. The marginally more wary would perhaps have been further persuaded by an opening paragraph which reads “The SNP wants the devo-plus option, which would see Holyrood take control of most taxes, included on the referendum ballot as an alternative to full independence.”

But of course, no such thing – or anything remotely close to it – has actually happened. Dig a few lines deeper and what you find is that some unnamed, unquoted “Nationalists” (who may or may not be in the SNP) have allegedly said that if “a strong body of opinion lines up behind devo-plus” (whatever that actually means), the Scottish Government might agree to include it on the referendum ballot.

(Despite the fact that on last night’s Newsnight Scotland, the proponents of devo-plus, including Jeremy Purvis and Tavish Scott, said that they didn’t want the option included in the vote at all. They want it to replace the status quo as the “No” choice.)

So to recap: some people who weren’t prepared to give their names have supposedly made comments which the paper has interpreted to mean that if certain vague conditions are met in the future something else might happen, in theory, despite that thing not being desired or supported even by the people who invented it. Quite the scoop for the Scotsman’s ace reporters – and for the high journalistic standards of the Scottish media as a whole – there, I’m sure we’d all agree.

There’s been a lot going on in Scottish politics since the start of the year. David Cameron’s intervention in the referendum debate in early January kickstarted a tumultuous outbreak of activity, and in the fevered frenzy of non-stop media analysis and speculation that’s erupted since then, everyone and their granny’s dog has had something to say about it. Well, nearly everyone.

Because one person has been conspicuous by their absence from the nation’s airwaves. Johann Lamont was elected leader of Scottish Labour just before Christmas (by an electorate whose precise size remains a secret) – timing ideally suited for her to hit the ground running and help to frame and shape the debate as it raged on the nation’s screens. But for some unknown reason, Labour have been incredibly reluctant to let her speak to the Scottish people.

Lamont appeared very briefly on Channel 4 News on January 9th to comment on Cameron’s interview on the Andrew Marr show the previous day. Since then, this blog has been unable to locate a single TV interview given by the Labour leader (other than at First Minister’s Questions) in almost two months. Dozens of episodes of Scotland Tonight, Newsnight Scotland, Sunday Politics Scotland and more have come and gone without Lamont’s input, while her ostensible deputy (Westminster MP Anas Sarwar) has been ubiquitous, making (at least) half-a-dozen visits to the BBC and STV studios.

Almost any significant figure you can think of in Scottish politics (and plenty of pretty insignificant ones too) has been on TV more than Lamont during this critical period. Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney, Michael Moore, Ruth Davidson, Ken McIntosh, Margaret Curran, Patrick Harvie, Humza Yousaf, Stewart Hosie, Derek Mackay, even Lord Wallace of Tankerness have all logged more airtime.

Read the rest of this entry →

As a concept, digital distribution – particularly of videogames – is a wonderful thing. It should, and sometimes does, reduce prices dramatically by cutting out the need for physical manufacture, stock inventory, distribution and retail middleman. (Which in turn can also make niche genres economically viable.)

It can be, and usually is, much more convenient too – there's no need to mess around with noisy, slow-loading discs or worry about getting them scratched or losing them if all your content is right there on an instantly-accessible hard drive.

The only problem with digital is that it cedes control of your software library (and therefore all the money you've invested in it) to business, and business is evil.

Read the rest of this entry →

It’s tempting to be taken in by the performances of Westminster politicians when they come to Scotland. David Cameron was full of self-effacement and humility in Edinburgh last week, and Michael Moore talks in soft and moderate tones of seeking only to “help” the Scottish Government whenever he speaks to the Scottish media. But if you want to see how our partners in the Union REALLY feel about us, it’s best to watch how they behave when they’re safely back at home.

The contempt for Scotland, and the Scottish Government in particular, just leaps off the screen. The Secretary of State for Scotland is supposed to be Scotland’s man in the government, not the government’s man in Scotland. It’s a post that the Lib Dems said they would abolish altogether in their 2010 manifesto (which is doubtless why in 2012 the job is not only still in existence under the coalition, but occupied by a Lib Dem). And it’s supposed to be a representative figurehead through which the opposition can challenge the UK government’s policies relating to Scotland.

But in the entire half-hour, only one notable question is actually directed by Labour (in the shape of Margaret Curran, who must have been ill) to Moore about his own administration’s conduct. Rather, the rest of the time he’s invited by members of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories to offer his opinion (which invariably concurs with theirs) on the actions of another body, which is not permitted any opportunity to answer back. The proceedings can be accurately summarised thusly:

RANDOM MP, ANY SIDE: “Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP are simply ghastly, and that they smell and all their mums are ugly?”

SECRETARY OF STATE: “Yes. Yes I do. But the Honourable Member should rest assured that this government is doing everything in its power to put the jumped-up little Scotch oiks in their place.”

(Repeat ad infinitum.)

The sheer disrespect in which Scotland is held by the Commons is demonstrated by the constant hubbub of noise over which some questioners fight to be heard, and which the Speaker repeatedly but ineffectually attempts to silence. The volume of contempt rises significantly if any SNP member rises from their seat to speak, only to be all but drowned in jeering, catcalling and hooting from all sides of the House.

When you’re implored over the coming years to remain in our “shared home“, never forget what our position in that home is. We’re not the husband or the wife, nor even a slightly sulky teenager or a new-born and wanted child. We’re the dog. And a dog that keeps making a mess on the carpet, at that. Vote No in 2014  and we’ll have our faces rubbed in it for a generation.

Something’s been puzzling us recently. So far as we can tell, every political party in Scotland now supports the transfer of more powers to the Scottish Parliament. The SNP clearly does, but all of the opposition parties are also now insisting that they want to improve the devolved settlement over and above the limp Scotland Bill currently staggering its way through Westminster.

We know the Lib Dems in both Holyrood and Westminster are in favour of more powers, because no less a figure than the Scottish Secretary told us so:

“The alternative is not the status quo, it’s actually about deciding what other powers Scotland should have within the UK.“

We had confirmation yesterday that Labour in the UK (along with Scottish Labour) also want more than the status quo, in the words of Alastair Darling:

“I don’t think that anybody would argue that the status quo, what we have at the moment, is satisfactory. The settlement reached in 1998 is not what we want at the moment, we need to move on from that.“

And of course, for the Tories, the Prime Minister himself has made his position clear (albeit that he had to humiliate the leader of the Scottish Conservatives to do it):

“And let me say something else about devolution. This doesn’t have to be the end of the road. When the referendum on independence is over, I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved. And yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved.“

So that’s all just grand. We have that rarest of political beasts, a true cross-party consensus: everyone (except poor Ruth Davidson, who we suspect is in the process of urgently revising her opinion) agrees that the Scottish Government should have more powers. But what we don’t understand is why these powers are all conditional on a No vote in the independence referendum.

Read the rest of this entry →

The man who seems to rapidly be becoming the de facto leader of the No campaign gave a fascinating interview on The Sunday Politics at the weekend. Increasingly flustered under persistent questioning from Isobel Fraser, Alastair Darling repeatedly asserted that the Union as it currently stands is a busted flush. But weirdly, time and again he demanded that the Scottish people bet everything on it anyway.

In our specially-commissioned illustration above, the Ace (quite naturally) represents independence. It’s normally the best card, but of course that rather depends what the other one is, and if you’ve ever played blackjack you’ll know that only an idiot would make their decision with only one of the cards showing. But for some unfathomable and inexplicable reason, we’re being asked to throw all our chips onto the table blind.

The former Chancellor was pretty unequivocal about his view of the present constitutional arrangements, and he claimed to speak for everyone else too:

“I don’t think that anybody would argue that the status quo, what we have at the moment, is satisfactory.” (35.04)

“The settlement reached in 1998 is not what we want at the moment, we need to move on from that.” (38.58)

That seems pretty clear, then. But bizarrely, this unsatisfactory state of affairs is what Darling wants the people of Scotland to vote for in the most important decision they’ll take in 300 years. Irrationally, Darling doesn’t want to improve the nature of the Union until AFTER people have decided whether they want to stay in it or not. Eh?

The MP for Edinburgh South West was very firm on the timing. Over and over, as Fraser pointed out the strangeness of the position, he stuck to the story – the Union is rubbish, but rather than fix it with better devolution over the next two and a half years and THEN ask people whether they want to stay in it or not, we should rush to a referendum much sooner (in 2013), vote No to independence, and then trust a Tory government in Westminster to hand Scotland more powers out of the goodness of its heart, now that we’d given up all possibility of leverage in any negotiations.

If this guy is the Union camp’s Great White Hope, we’re ordering bunting.

So was that it? The Unionist media is briefing hard that David Cameron finally laid out the fabled “positive case for the Union” in Edinburgh this week. You can judge the positivity or otherwise for yourself by reading the full text of his speech (which was far more delicately-judged than his previous clodhopping intervention, but still contained the traditional doom-laden warnings of “danger”, terrorist attack, banking collapse and so on) here, but whether the message was positive or not, the one thing it certainly wasn’t was a case for the Union.

Cameron listed a fairly impressive set of reasons why Scotland was great (even managing to cite Keir Hardie through what must have been gritted teeth). He explained why the past was great, because in it the UK had forged great institutions like the NHS (which is already an entirely separate and fully-devolved body in Scotland) and a “generous” welfare state – both of which his government is now dismantling as fast as it humanly (and inhumanly) can. And he hinted at a great future, in which Scotland would enjoy greater devolved powers and responsibilities.

The problem is, the referendum will be a straight choice not between independence and a possible imaginary Union of the future, but between independence and the Union we have now. (Cameron is unequivocal on this, insisting that his hypothetical vision of a more devolved Scotland within the United Kingdom isn’t actually offered to the Scottish people, but left entirely in the trust of Westminster.) And for THAT Union, Cameron made no case at all. Indeed, it could plausibly be argued that he all but explicitly abandoned it.

It’s hard to construct any sort of plausible justification for the Prime Minister’s refusal, when repeatedly challenged by journalists after the speech, to outline the specific devolution proposals which might be negotiated or acknowledge any need for a democratic mandate for them. Cameron has two years in which he could, if he wished, put together an “enhanced devolution” package which could go on the ballot paper. That’s plenty of time, especially given that the Unionist parties have already had a  two-year head start while working on the Calman Commission and Scotland Bill. So why is he so implacably opposed to the idea?

It seems unlikely that the Scottish electorate will fall for such a flimsy pig in a poke. They have, after all, been here before (as the SNP will be sure to constantly remind them), and the vague implied promises of some sort of possible jam tomorrow will carry no more weight for also coming from the hopelessly discredited mouths of Nick Clegg and Michael Moore. (And less still if Labour join in, should they somehow get so far as managing to develop a policy at all.)

David Cameron didn’t make the positive case for the Union on Thursday. He made a case for a positive version of the Union. It’s a version which exists only in abstract conceptual form and which the Prime Minister will neither describe nor commit himself to. (And indeed, one which he may be in no power to honour even if he wanted to, given that by the time the referendum is over a UK general election will loom a matter of months over the horizon.)

It is, in other words, a con trick – a honey trap, built with sugar-sweet words and little else. The Scottish people were badly stung 33 years ago. We suspect this time it’s Cameron who will come unstuck.