We read something odd in the Herald yesterday.
In the same spirit of magnanimity, Wings Over Scotland would like to humbly and solemnly announce that from today onwards we will abide by the law of gravity and the requirement for human beings to breathe oxygen in order to respire. Thank you.
It can be a full-time job keeping up with the many inconsistencies and contradictions in the anti-independence campaign. (Labour’s professed hatred for the Tories but willingness to let them govern Scotland when Scottish voters reject them, and the Conservatives’ belief in the UK Union but deep-seated antipathy to the European one, leap out as two of the more obvious examples.) Today’s is a corker, though.
Attentive readers will recall that the “Better Together” camp has spent the five months since its launch constantly warning Scots that independence would be “irrevocable”. Here’s figurehead Alistair Darling being reported in the Telegraph as saying just that at the No campaign’s launch in June of this year (our emphasis, as usual):
Pretty unequivocal, then – independence is forever, no going back in our lifetime, or that of our children, or their children, or their children. But wait. Fast-forward to last night and the former Chancellor appears to have had a radical change of heart, in a BBC story headlined “Darling predicts independent Scotland would rejoin UK”:
Of course, if you’re a Wings Over Scotland reader you already knew the “irrevocable” line was a load of rubbish that could only be true if the core claim – and indeed, the very name – of “Better Together” was a cynical lie. But it’s nice to see Mr Darling admit it this early in the day. Which strident assertion, we wonder, will he recant next?
Labour today is a far cry from the party of old, a party that was set up to provide a voice for the working class so as to gain control over the means of production for the masses rather than to be dictated to by capitalism. The modern incarnation is now peddling the notion of “One Nation Labour”, with Johann Lamont decrying what she calls the “something for nothing country” of Scotland, presumably referring to the stubborn preference of the Scots for the social democractic principles of “old” Labour over the neoliberal New Labour. As justification for the rightward shift, Lamont asserts:
(Clearly she’s been using Gordon Brown’s sub-editor.)
On the face of it, that seems a relatively straightforward statement of fact: if you can’t pay for something then you have to cut back, go without or find new money to properly fund it. It should be noted that as we’ve seen, at present there’s no need to make this choice because current spending is fully funded. However, as costs rise and privatisation, budget cuts and PFI in England (along with some creative accounting of England-only spending as “UK” projects or reserve-budget items) continue to cause reductions in the Scottish block grant, we soon will.
As with any long campaign, we’re a bit worried that we might have to spend the next two years saying the same things over and over again, because the main Unionist tactic seems to be to keep asking questions after they’ve been answered a hundred times. That said, when you’ve got your hands full with domestic mini-crises (as we’ve had all this week), it can be quite useful to have already covered the day’s main topics and be able to just point people at the archives before rushing off to fight the latest fire.
If we don’t have a heart attack before then, see you tomorrow.
.
There was a shock admission from Anas Sarwar, “deputy” leader of Scottish Labour, when speaking about the referendum on BBC Scotland’s “The Big Debate” last night:
“This will be the biggest decision that any of you will make in your lifetime, and what we need actually is Yes.”
It’s not every day we agree with the often factually-challenged MP for Glasgow Central, but this time we think he’s hit the nail square on the head.
(Because it’s fine to just cut people’s quotes short to suit your own purposes, right?)
Here’s a little weekend brainteaser for you, folks. On the BBC’s This Week show on Saturday, veteran presenter Andrew Neil interviewed two former senior government ministers about the UK’s nuclear deterrent – one was a Conservative former Defence Secretary, the other a Labour former Culture Secretary. For now we’ll call them Politician A and Politician B.
See if you can match the following quotes to the person who said them.
ANDREW NEIL: What is your view – should [Trident] be renewed?
POLITICIAN A: No, I think it’s all nonsense.
NEIL: Should we have any kind of nuclear deterrent?
POLITICIAN A: No, it’s completely past its sell-by date. It’s neither independent, because we couldn’t possibly use it without the Americans, neither is it any sort of deterrent, because now largely we are facing the sorts of enemies – the Taliban, Al Qaeda – who cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons. It’s a tremendous waste of money, it’s done entirely for reasons of national prestige, it’s wasteful, and at the margins it is proliferatory.
NEIL: Okay. But the government – or at least the Conservative part of the coalition – looks like they’re going to proceed with it. What will [your party’s] position be on it [, Politician B]?
POLITICIAN B: Actually, the position that Phillip Hammond has taken is very close to the position that we agreed some time ago when [Politician C] was Defence Secretary. The decision about whether to proceed […] won’t be taken until 2016…
NEIL: …but you’re happy that Mr Hammond’s going ahead with the spending, the seed money, which allows the decision if you want to?
POLITICIAN B: Yeah, completely, yes, yeah.
We’re going to assume that you’re ahead of us here, readers. The former Tory Defence Secretary (Michael Portillo) is, of course Politician A, the one who thinks that the UK’s nuclear deterrent is a pointless, ineffectual waste of time and money aimed solely at letting the UK grandstand on the world stage, while the former Labour Cabinet minister (Tessa Jowell) is Politician B, who wants to spend billions of pounds just on the preparatory research for upgrading it – let alone the £84bn cost of actually doing so – at a time when her party is telling us that we can’t afford to educate our young people or look after the elderly.
You can watch this remarkable development for as long as it’s still available on the iPlayer (from 31 minutes), or listen to a permanent audio clip here. The politics of the Union are now truly through the looking glass.
As the Scottish people ponder the merits of independence, it can be useful to examine areas in which Holyrood rather than Westminster already controls policy, and one of the most obvious is healthcare. The NHS is in almost all operational senses already independent in Scotland, and operates in a markedly different manner to the way the service is run in England and Wales.
But as we recently revealed, the Scottish NHS remains subject to hidden budget cuts as a result of the Barnett Formula, as well as the headline cuts imposed to Scotland’s block grant under Westminster austerity. The question, then, is whether this devolved form of “independence” is enough to maintain the standards of healthcare Scots have come to expect.
After ten days, we have an answer, of sorts.
“Dear Rev Campbell
Reference CAS-1714825-RP7R5W
Thank you for your e-mail. Your comments were passed to the Editor of Newsnight Scotland, who has asked that I forward his response as follows:
“Thank you for getting in touch with us about the Newsnight Scotland interview with Nicola Sturgeon on 23rd October.
We have received a number of complaints about this item, most of them concerning the sound quality of the interview and a number alleging politically-motived bias.
To take each in turn:
I accept that the sound quality of this item fell short of the standards we would expect and apologise if this detracted from your enjoyment of the interview. However, I do not believe that the editorial sense of that interview was compromised by the technical problems. I have investigated what went wrong in this instance and have taken appropriate steps to ensure that something similar does not occur in future.
Some have suggested that the BBC in some way deliberately ‘doctored’ the interview for reasons of political bias; others suggested that it was not a technical fault but a deliberate attempt to suppress the words of the Deputy First Minister. Either suggestion implies that we were happy to be grossly unprofessional and, thereby, seriously to breach all of the journalistic standards which the BBC has striven for so many years to achieve and which are encapsulated in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. I can only repeat – this was an unfortunate technical matter for which I again apologise.
Thank you again for taking the time and the trouble to be in touch about the programme.”
Details of the BBC complaints process are available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml
Kind Regards
Patrick McManus
BBC Complaints”
As often tends to be the case with BBC responses, it produces more questions than answers. The nature of the “technical fault” is not clarified, there’s nothing on how it managed to get past the producer without the failure being noticed and be broadcast, and nor – more tellingly – is there any explanation of why there was no apology broadcast on either that night’s show or the following evening’s. Even if we take the reply at face value with regard to the incident itself, we all pay a significant (and mandatory) fee for the BBC and we deserve more respect than that.
But most curiously of all, if you read it closely the reply doesn’t in fact deny the suggestions of bias. It merely says, if we might paraphrase, “If you believe we’d do such a thing, then you must be prepared to believe that we’re biased.” It rather conspicuously doesn’t go on to add “But we’re not”, instead merely leaving the reader to infer it without it actually being said.
We feel compelled to note once again that in the event of a vote for independence, everyone at BBC Scotland would be out of a job. We’re not sure how conducive to impartiality that is, and we suspect it could certainly stretch to turning a blind eye to an initially non-deliberate gremlin in the works. We will, as ever, continue to monitor.
Watching FMQs yesterday, a thought suddenly occurred to us. Is it possible that a lot of Scottish people’s reluctance to support independence isn’t because they think the south-east of England knows what’s best for Scotland, but because they’re simply terrified of the possibility of someone other than the SNP winning an election to an independent Scottish Parliament, and thereby risking putting the entire nation in the hands of the likes of Johann Lamont, Jackie Baillie and Richard Baker?
Have we been making a terrible tactical error all this time? Should we, in fact, spend the next two years bigging up Scottish Labour and the rest of the Holyrood opposition instead of mercilessly exposing their hapless ineptitude at every turn? Should we do our best to reassure a frightened electorate that should the SNP split after independence (which some people think it will, though we don’t), there’s nothing to fear from a government that might include Anas Sarwar, Margaret Curran and James Kelly and have control of ALL of Scotland’s finances, welfare and defence?
Because if so we’ll give it a shot. But frankly, that’s going to be a tough sell.
It’s got flowers on it and everything.
Gemma Fox is a rather strange lady who makes Lego dioramas of Royal Marine Commandos and who we had a childish but enlightening recreational argument with on Twitter last night. (Funnily enough after a long and tiring day visiting the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Yeovilton.) James Mackenzie is a Green activist and one of the editors of the once-popular and increasingly-ironically-named Better Nation blog.
(Mackenzie threw an impressive hissy fit earlier this week when we very politely challenged him to support a seemingly-baseless allegation about another blogger, even going so far as to claim “harassment” on the basis of someone responding civilly to comments made in an open public forum. Presumably, as a Better Nation editor he’s just not used to people answering him back without being able to censor them.)
Ms Fox generously warned us last night that we had until “2000 hrs” this evening to delete unspecified tweets from our account, and that we should also “warn yer pals”. (We’re not quite sure who that means, but it might be you, so we thought we’d better let you know.) If we vanish suddenly at 8.01pm under legal action – the threat of which we’re sure is real and serious, and definitely not just the mad rantings of a delusional internet lunatic – speak kindly of us when we’re gone. We had a good run.
Did anyone else notice that in last night’s Scotland Tonight interview (in which he noted that Labour’s tribal hatred of the SNP was blinding and damaging it), former First Minister Henry McLeish referred to Johann Lamont as “leader of the Labour Party in Scotland”, rather than as the leader of anything called “Scottish Labour”? As a current member and ex-head of the party’s Scottish division, you’d think Mr McLeish would know the proper name and internal structure of it. What aren’t we being told?
Scotland Tonight and Newsnight Scotland both ran fairly decent shows last night leading with the issue of Trident and its replacement, but the most telling contribution to the debate came from the long-standing Labour columnist Polly Toynbee. In a frank and direct piece for the Guardian, Toynbee analysed the politics rather than the economic or defence arguments, and concurred with something this site and others have been saying for almost a year:
“We know where everyone stands – except Labour.”
But it’s just after that line where Toynbee drops the real bomb:
“Some in Labour are nuclear-heads because they occupy seats such as John Woodcock’s Barrow, a one-industry town dependent on defence. Others are nuclear out of strong conviction a unilateralist Labour would be dead at the polls. Probably no one in Labour actually believes we need a Trident replacement for national defence – only for political defence of Labour.“
It’s become fashionable in recent months to put forward the argument that the Scottish electorate isn’t as different to the English one as we often like to portray. There’s certainly a core sliver of truth to that, with the Scottish political spectrum slightly distorted by votes for the left-of-centre SNP that may be at least partly more to do with their competence – compared to an embarrassingly useless opposition – than with Scots being ragingly socialist.
But there are still specific issues where Scots consistently poll to the left of England and the rest of the UK. Welfare is one, and Trident is another. Whether that’s based on a deep moral opposition to the concept of nuclear weapons or merely the fact that it’s our backyard they’re parked in is a matter for conjecture. But the SNP can’t be accused of populist opportunism on the issue, because they’ve been solidly committed to an anti-nuclear platform since the day the first Polaris submarine sailed up the Clyde over 50 years ago.
Labour, on the other hand, are so dizzy from trying to face in every direction at once on the issue that their Scottish “leader” refuses to even say what her personal position is, let alone what she’d do were she to somehow, God forbid, find herself the First Minister of an independent Scotland.
Toynbee’s explosive column openly acknowledges the truth: the £83bn cost of Trident (and the reality, demonstrated over decades, is that it will in fact be several times that) is, as far as Labour are concerned, an expenditure primarily aimed at getting themselves elected. Not that they’ll pay for it – you and I, the gullible taxpayer – will pick up the tab, and the sick and the poor and the vulnerable will be the ones to suffer from the huge hole it’ll leave in the budget.
Labour don’t want Trident because they think it protects the people of the UK, because even Tony Blair admitted it was worthless for that. They want it to protect themselves.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
