We thought readers might possibly like to hear the unexpurgated audio of our interview with The Times this week, so that they could judge the tone of our “expletive-ridden condemnations” and whatnot for themselves.
Other than a few bits of minor tidying-up – such as me umming and aahing trying to remember the name of a song, or when the manager came round to ask if we wanted more drinks – this is the whole of the “official” interview.
(In conversation with Kenny Farquharson of The Times, 1 August 2019) .
In case you missed it, there was an interesting phone-in on the subject of Scottish independence on James O’Brien’s LBC radio show from 10am this morning. I chipped my tuppence-worth in at the start (I’m the second caller, from about 6m 25s), but it’s fascinating listening to O’Brien’s tone evolve as the hour-long segment goes on.
(James O’Brien, LBC, 7 August 2019) .
We don’t doubt for a moment the sincerity and good intent with which he states his position. But when he talks in the intro about the special feelings he has when he’s in Scotland, which he also gets in Greece, the whole argument collapses.
Because O’Brien doesn’t appear to need to feel that he “owns” Greece, or that he’s a Greek citizen, to have that warmth towards it. He doesn’t need the people of England to elect Greece’s governments for it – he’s happy to have those feelings towards a completely independent country. So why not about an independent Scotland?
(Sadly I was cut off before I got a chance to respond to his point about Germany and its federal regions, which would have been to point out that no one German region is six times bigger than all the others put together and can – and does – impose its will on them whenever it wants.)
And much to his credit he appears to realise that as the show goes on. Whether he still thinks deep down that the Scottish independence movement is in significant part driven by anti-Englishness, only he can say. But his callers today at least appear to have made him think about it, and it’s a process worth listening to.
We hadn’t been intending to talk about this again today, but the John Beattie show on Radio Scotland just ran a segment that we really can’t let go unremarked.
Here’s the whole thing. Some of that’s going to need interpreting for the sane.
For those of you who didn’t catch the media review section of today’s John Beattie show on Radio Scotland, where the Wings/YouTube copyright case was discussed at length, here’s a compilation of the relevant sections. It’s quite the listen.
(John Beattie, BBC Radio Scotland, 2 August 2018) .
There was (unintentionally, we presume) a very revealing turn of phrase used by Tory MEP Jacqueline Foster on today’s edition of Good Morning Scotland:
“Scotland held a referendum on independence a couple of years earlier, and if the Scots had won that referendum to leave the United Kingdom, they’d have left the European Union.”
We suppose it’s nice that even the Tories finally agree that Scotland lost by voting No. But it’s interesting to hear that apparently there hasnever been any way for Scots to stay in the EU – if they voted Yes in 2014 they were out, if they voted No in 2014 they were out, and even though they voted Remain in 2016 they’re going out.
Any fair-minded democrat would surely then accept that Scotland’s voters deserve one chance to actually make that choice in a meaningful way, no?
This is the well-known hardcore Corbynite commentator John McTernan on the radio yesterday, detailing how outrageous it would be for politicians to attempt to block a second referendum on a divisive but important issue.
(Alert readers may have noticed that I had to adopt a wee bit of subterfuge to get on by saying – truthfully – that I was from Bathgate, because BBC Scotland don’t tend to take my calls when I say where I am.)
As you’ll hear, Rennie had no answer to the question (even when put to him again by Adams), trying to deflect the issue onto SNP BAD instead.
His position was that the British people should have the right to another vote in case they’ve changed their mind about Brexit, even though there’s been no material change of circumstances, but that the Scottish people SHOULDN’T have the right to another vote on independence even though there HAS been a huge material change.
The Labour general election manifesto is officially launched today, as if it mattered. It will reportedly say that the party will block a second independence referendum if it’s in power at Westminster, which of course it won’t be.
And while Labour’s position on anything – particularly anything involving Scotland – is a complete irrelevance, it’s still quite fun to listen to them tying themselves in knots.
So with no further ado, ladies and gentlemen, we bring you Duncan Hothersall.
We greatly enjoyed Any Questions on Radio 4 this week. Well chaired by Jonathan Dimbleby, it was a mostly grown-up and adult discussion of issues around nationalism and independence, perhaps assisted by the fact that – we gather – Scottish Labour branch manager Kezia Dugdale was unable to take part and was replaced as a Labour representative by Lord Falconer, who offered some considered and intelligent views.
The only slight wasp in the ointment was Tory list MSP Adam Tomkins, who delivered his usual boorish, patrician and arrogant debating style, which was frequently met with boos, jeers and catcalls from a feisty Blantyre audience. But he did come out with one rather unexpected and off-message policy position.
The John Beattie Show on BBC Radio Scotland today hosted a 20-minute-long debate between Professor Richard Murphy and an amateur Unionist blogger who for the last several years has used the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures to prove that an independent Scotland would be economically unviable.
Below is a very short extract from it. (The full debate is here.)
We’re glad that’s finally settled. Though we have to admit, given that all parties to the discussion now absolutely concur on those facts, we’re a bit confused about what the amateur blogger’s been doing for the last five years.
This is an indicator to me - having professional experience in these matters - that this event wasn't handled in the appropriate way at all.
The most basic briefing, to a guest in an environment that's under the safeguarding framework, would have explained that pics are a no-no! https://t.co/qqaO5nVL5S
“Those that don’t bleed” -
but post-menopausal women aren’t protesting the event
premenopausal girls aren’t protesting it
post-hysterectomy women aren’t protesting.
MEN are protesting the event. The only “people who don’t bleed” who find menstrual fundraisers offensive are MEN. https://t.co/hNoAaqGpTa
@Jeggit I can’t believe anyone thought this a good idea. Surely in LBTQ month it would have been more appropriate to invite a gay sport star, teacher, doctor etc instead of what could be perceived as a stereotype? Just my opinion, which I am still entitled to voice? And that timeline😳
