Wings Over Scotland

It’s curious that as the Scotland Bill negotiations deadlock drags on, well beyond its original deadline of 12 February and now hurtling headlong towards the extended 23 February one with no sign of progress on the horizon, that nobody is remarking on one of the most striking facets of the new devolution proposals.

Remember “pooling and sharing”, readers? Whatever happened to that?

Read the rest of this entry →

Without a doubt our new favourite Unionist website is this one:

And it’s not just for the snazzy badges.

Read the rest of this entry →

We saw a very interesting article on the London School of Economics website today.

It notes that in 2006, the year before the SNP came to power, 65% of Scots identified themselves as “Scottish not British” or “more Scottish than British”, but by 2014 – the year of the independence referendum – that number had fallen to just 49%.

It concludes, correctly, that just as we noted on Sunday, support for independence is fundamentally political in nature, not nationalist. But that only tells half the story.

Read the rest of this entry →

The Herald’s lead politics story this morning:

So Scotland currently has no debt? No responsibility for any share of the enormous £1.5 trillion burden run up by the UK? We’ll take that deal. Where do we sign?

Read the rest of this entry →

Barely a week – indeed, barely a day – has gone by over the last year or so without some angry, confused and hurt-sounding Unionist pundit or politician churning out yet another article on the theme of “WHY AREN’T YOU GRATEFUL THAT WE SAVED YOU FROM INDEPENDENCE, YOU APPALLING PLEBS?”

As far as the No side are concerned, the oil-price slump is a slam-dunk game-ender which finally conclusively proves that Scotland is too wee and too poor to run its own affairs, and their uncomprehending bewilderment as support for a Yes vote not only fails to disintegrate but keeps increasing even as the oil price sinks lower and lower has been quite a phenomenon to behold.

So we were interested to see today’s Sunday Times report a YouGov poll done for the comedy grumpy-old-white-guys support group (and spectacularly unsuccessful tactical voting enthusiasts) Scotland In Union, and somewhat miss the point of the results.

Read the rest of this entry →

There’s nothing unusual about reading something in the Scottish media that makes your eyes widen. But a piece we saw in the Courier earlier today stretched ours out to Clockwork Orange-like proportions.

Now that’s a pretty intriguing opening (as the bishop said to the actress). At first we took it to mean that an independent Scotland could effectively take over Britain’s EU membership in the event of a Leave vote, ending any debate about whether and when it would be admitted on its own.

But then the punchline arrived.

Read the rest of this entry →

The title of this article is a phrase that people use when publishing a transcript of someone’s intended speech, to signify that this is what they INTENDED to say, but that the reader should verify it with the actual speech to check whether they did, because sometimes there are last-minute changes or the person simply forgets bits.

The above is Kezia Dugdale’s scripted speech to the Scottish Labour conference in October 2015, just 94 days before calling for an income tax increase for “hundreds of thousands of working Scots”.

Sometimes leaving stuff out by accident looks like the smart move.

There’s an interesting article in today’s Guardian about the clown-shoed fiasco of a position the Labour Party has contorted itself into over Trident. It correctly identifies the conflict between a party representing its actual membership and being controlled by its Parliamentarians who insist they know better than the people they’re supposed to speak for, but then right at the end veers off to an irrational conclusion.

Because the obsessive insistence of the vast majority of commentators that political parties – and they’re nearly always talking about Labour – must at all times pander to the centre ground leads inescapably to one logical endpoint: that all political parties should disband themselves immediately and forever.

Read the rest of this entry →

Scottish Labour’s announcement that it wants to increase tax for everyone earning over £20k (and therefore anyone on under that who fancies making a little bit more, or might do a wee bit of extra overtime), reflects its acceptance both that the far left is in charge now and that this year’s Holyrood race is virtually over already.

SNP party folk will “take nothing for granted”, of course, and some aficionados might find it fun to see which candidates slink into list seats after they’ve lost the votes which count, but I’m really much more interested in what will come after that.

Read the rest of this entry →

From an excellent letter in today’s Herald by Chris McLaughlin of Giffnock:

The only fault in Chris’ logic is that he’s a bit too generous to Labour.

Read the rest of this entry →

From a Daily Record vox pop today on Scottish Labour’s tax plan.

Seems there are some things nearly everyone agrees on.

The headline of this article is a personal opinion derived from true facts. The popular associate of a prominent anonymous and abusive internet troll has undertaken more than 50 lawsuits against the press, and has admitted in an interview with The Times that she’s “too thin-skinned” when it comes to people writing critically about her.

That seems to us to be fair and factual evidence in support of “litigious”.

“Bully”, meanwhile, is an honestly-held opinion related to those facts, based on the following definitions of that word from the Oxford English Dictionary:

For example, we consider that actively and publicly threatening to use your enormous financial power to sue someone, unless they back down over a highly questionable claim of defamation and donate money to your charity, is beyond reasonable-minded dispute “using your superior strength or influence” to “intimidate” them.

(This is particularly true if you interact with the person by unnecessarily involving your audience of 6.6 million social-media followers, a percentage of whom will then be highly likely to bombard them with abuse, whether you intend them to or not. Even aside from direct abuse, McGarry received in excess of 75,000 Twitter notifications simply as a result of Rowling’s tweets mentioning her.)

And there’s a reason we mention this.

Read the rest of this entry →