Wings Over Scotland

We hope you’re just drunk, Ian. Honestly we do.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’re indebted to commenter “DougtheDug” on A Sair Fecht for spotting this one. On Tuesday in the House of Commons section 30 debate, Labour MP Ian Davidson bitterly attacked the Scottish Government for allegedly timing the independence referendum to coincide – at least to within six months – with the 700th anniversary of the Battle Of Bannockburn. (Ignoring the fact that the referendum would have happened years ago had it not been vigorously opposed and blocked by Labour.)

Davidson claimed that the timing amounted to “celebrating the murder of hundreds or thousands of English people“, and accused the SNP of exploiting anti-English sentiment for “partisan advantage”. It was a contemptible enough piece of dog-whistle politics in its own right, but all the more extraordinarily hypocritical in the light of this:

Lurking in the Westminster archives is an Early Day Motion from late 2003, in which Mr Davidson was happy to attach his name to a Parliamentary celebration – tabled by the Conservative MP for Romford, Andrew Rosindell – of what we presume we must call “the murder of hundreds or thousands of French and Spanish people”.

We must admit, we’re a little confused. Apparently openly and explicitly rejoicing at the historic deaths of enemy troops is fine if you’re a British nationalist, but disgusting, racist political chicanery if you’re a Scottish one (even when you’re not actually doing it). Can anyone point us at the rulebook for this sort of thing?

Perhaps we’re being overly suspicious here. But the “sex scandal” incident currently surrounding Glasgow City Council leader Gordon Matheson actually happened over a month ago – December 12th to be precise. Having evaded the attention of the press for so long, there’s no obvious reason for the story to have suddenly broken now.

Except, that is, if there was another story centred on Glasgow City Council – a much more serious one, that the Labour council wanted to deflect attention from with a juicy bit of sleaze gossip. And hey, guess what?

Read the rest of this entry →

At the time we write this, the Herald’s inaccurate story about Faslane jobs remains uncorrected. But as we were scouring the page last night for any sign of the Herald’s “clarification” of its figures, we stumbled across a gem in the comments.

As long-term readers will probably be aware, Terry Kelly isn’t just some random comments-page troll. He is in fact an elected Labour councillor for the lucky people of Paisley North West, though such is the volume of his daily outpourings in various newspapers (he’s one of the few people the Herald appears to see fit to bless with automatic comment approval) that it’s a wonder he finds any time to represent them.

Terry’s we-wish-it-was-unique blend of arrogance, smugness and complete ignorance is pretty standard No-campaign troll fodder, but the example above is particularly fine.

Read the rest of this entry →

In all the time I’ve lived in Bath, it’s snowed on average about once every five years. A combination of its south-west location and sitting in a big natural bowl means that there’s almost never a flake of the stuff in sight, let alone a drift. It’s always a welcome sight when it does arrive, because without it winter can really drag – six long months of grey, cold, dark and drizzle, whereas at least back home in Scotland you get a sense of time passing as the distinctive seasons change.

Well, today it snowed – a solid three or four inches. It’s lovely, and I’ve just been for a stroll in the city’s biggest park to enjoy it. It’s not going to be easy to turn a bit of chilly weather into a piece of searing polemic about Scottish independence, but dammit, where would the fun be in it if it was?

Read the rest of this entry →

An unnamed SNP spokesman on STV News:

“We have no wish to comment on Cllr Matheson’s private life. The issues which are important to the city are Labour’s scandalous £500,000 pay-off to a supposed anti-poverty boss which has been condemned by the charity regulator, the closure of day centres for adults with learning disabilities without consultation, and their incompetence over plans to redevelop George Square.”

Still, we’re sure that free wi-fi will be along any day now.

I’ll make a confession: I don’t think Scotland needs independence. I’m not certain full independence is the most desirable option. At this stage in the debate, on Wings Over Scotland, that might be a quite contentious assertion. But last year, on numerous talkboards and comment threads, starting with that statement frequently saw me being called a “cybernat”, an “SNP stooge” or in one instance, “Salmond’s stormtrooper”.

That was because the statement always came with a “but”: “…but we do need control of welfare” or “…but we do need fiscal autonomy”“. And the “but” never went down well.

Full fiscal autonomy was the reason I voted Liberal Democrat in 2007. It had much to recommend it over the SNP’s full independence policy, both for Scotland and the rUK. It would have been a gradual approach that wouldn’t have scared many horses, north or south of the Tweed. It was an “I do want independence but am too polite to say so, in a very British way” kind of option.

It could have passed barely noticed by the UK media. Friends and family in England would have responded to your declaration of being a “full fiscal autonomy supporter” with a weary eye-roll and “Do shut up about Scottish politics, dear”. Independence, even if virtually synonymous in the detail, instead attracts “What? You want to rip my country apart, literally destroy 300 years of history and rob me of my entire identity, you evil separatist nat bastard?”

Read the rest of this entry →

Seeking some light entertainment, this morning we belatedly got round to reading a piece by Jim Murphy MP on Labour Uncut while we were waiting for First Minister’s Questions to begin. (An event we were startled to see Labour and the Tories both turn up to, recklessly lending legitimacy to an undemocratic one-party dictatorship.)

Murphy’s piece was the usual drivel, but a line caught our eye:

“Opposition to independence increased from 50% in January to 55% in June then 58% in the latest poll. At the moment, the nearer we get to the vote the further away the SNP look like winning it.”

Naturally we were confused. Murphy’s piece was published on Tuesday, so you’d have thought by then he’d be aware of the “latest poll”, which was published by the Herald on Monday and in fact showed “opposition to independence” plunging from 58% to 48% – a level below even the lowest figure in Murphy’s timeline, dating back a year.

Can anyone point us to this more recent poll than Monday’s? Cheers.

Ten days ago, Scottish Labour “deputy” leader Anas Sarwar issued a press release in his capacity as head of Labour’s referendum campaign, noting that “[Nicola Sturgeon] is right to say there has been a lot of negative campaigning. We will be raising the level of debate and ensuring that Scotland gets the level of debate it deserves.”

Here are some extracts from Sarwar and his independence-fearing colleagues’ contributions to yesterday’s epic House of Commons “debate” (in which one side got a little over 10 times as long to put its case as the other) on the motion giving the Scottish Parliament the power to conduct the independence referendum.

Make your own judgement as to how they did, and the level of debate they apparently consider Scotland deserves.

Read the rest of this entry →

We can’t even be bothered linking to Brian Wilson‘s latest load of “will-this-do?” money for old rope in The Scotsman. We also can’t be bothered refuting any of its infantile, defamatory lies, which would all embarrass any grown-up newspaper that retained a shred of pride in its content. And we’re not going to occupy any more of our valuable time demolishing the central argument, when Brian has so helpfully done it for us himself right in the middle of his own article.

HEADLINE
“Shetland has the right to go it alone”

COPY
“There is little evidence that Shetland particularly wants to be independent”

There is? That’s that all sorted out, then. We’ve got a long queue of drivelling eejits to deal with today, Brian – have a lollipop and move along, there’s a good wee lad.

Scotland on Sunday today carries an interview with Michael Moore, in which the Scottish Secretary rather undermines the No campaign’s constant demands for “detail” about an independent Scotland by admitting that the Westminster government will refuse to discuss matters like Scotland’s possible share of UK debt in advance of the referendum. There’s an even stranger passage shortly afterwards, though:

“Moore also signalled that his government would play hard-ball if Scotland did vote for independence – a scenario that would force the UK administration to negotiate an independence settlement with the Scottish administration. In the event of a Yes vote, Moore said the UK government would have to “prioritise” the interests of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish and would be unable to give the Scottish Government everything that it wanted.”

Well, duh. If Scotland votes for independence, then any UK government minister will by definition be acting on the sole behalf of “the English, Welsh and Northern Irish”. Their ONLY responsibility will be to try to get the best possible deal for those people, in a negotiation in which Scotland is on the opposite side of the table. Anything else would plainly be a gross dereliction of duty.

It’s a bit like Ally McCoist saying that if The Rangers were to be drawn against Celtic in the Scottish Cup, he would “have to prioritise the interests of Rangers fans and would be unable to give Neil Lennon everything he wanted” – true, for sure, but as much of a big fat waste of time and newsprint as leading with the front-page headline that the Sun is hot and the sea is wet.

Scotland on Sunday’s circulation fell by almost 20% in the last year.

Two ostensibly-unrelated stories from today’s Scottish press leap out at each other with such force you fear the collision could almost create an actual thunderstorm.

“Benefits reform ‘to force 1 in 4 into poverty'”, roars Scotland On Sunday’s second-top story above a curiously makeover-ish picture of Margaret Curran and news of a report by the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations which predicts that hundreds of thousands of children and vulnerable women (in particular) will be pushed into financial catastrophe by the Westminster government’s benefit cuts.

Curran is then quoted as attacking the UK coalition because it’s “prepared to cut the incomes of hard-working Scottish families at a time when people are already struggling to make ends meet”, and demanding “welfare reform that works”. Which makes a story in this morning’s Sunday Herald all the more bewildering.

Read the rest of this entry →