Wings Over Scotland

Do Ed Miliband, Tony Benn and George Galloway and now Sir Menzies Campbell (who appeared on today’s edition of The Sunday Politics Scotland) have some sort of problem with foreigners? It sounds like they do. For instance, read these words from Tony Benn, the great elder statesman of the Labour Party, this summer:

“If Scotland wants to be independent they have the absolute right to do so. But I think nationalism is a mistake. And I am half Scots and feel it would divide me in half with a knife. The thought that my mother would suddenly be a foreigner would upset me very much.”

When asked about Benn’s views in a recent Holyrood magazine interview, Labour leader Ed Miliband had this to say:

“I am not the only person with family ties abroad and family is family, whatever the accent or postcode. But the Scottish people with family in England, or vice versa, will be living in a foreign country if Alex Salmond gets his way, that’s just a fact. We live in an increasingly interconnected world; we shouldn’t be building artificial barriers, we should be working out how to work more closely together.“

And on an episode of Scotland Tonight a few months ago, where Galloway discussed the issue of Scottish independence with YesScotland chair Dennis Canavan, the Respect MP talked passionately of solidarity between working-class people, which Scottish independence would, he claimed, damage. He felt just the same solidarity, he suggested, with bus drivers in Glasgow, Bradford and Belfast.

To which the most obvious immediate response is “What about bus drivers in Dublin, Oslo, Marseilles, Toronto or Lagos?” Does George Galloway not have the same sense of solidarity with them? Clearly not, if he feels that Scottish independence is somehow contrary to his solidarity with bus drivers either side of the border. If Scottish bus drivers somehow becoming citizens of a different country to bus drivers in his own Bradford constituency has any relevance to his ability to be in solidarity with them, you have to wonder about the nature of his socialism and his solidarity.

Read the rest of this entry →

Well, we’re still a bit out of breath. The SNP conference debate on NATO membership was an incredible, grab-you-by-the-throat piece of political theatre, with the outcome in doubt all the way to the end. Social media was all but unanimous in its praise of the debate, with even some Labour MPs clearly a bit wistful for the Kinnock-era days when their own gatherings used to have this sort of proper democratic ding-dong instead of just stage-managed rallies.

The leadership carried the day in the end, with Angus Robertson’s motion for a wide-ranging “update” of the party’s old defence policy passed more or less unaltered. We had absolutely no position before the debate so watched it with a completely open mind, and purely on the strength of arguments the right side won.

Read the rest of this entry →

Something’s been puzzling us for a while now, readers. We’ve been a bit reluctant to mention it before because it’s the sort of thing people can spin in misleading ways, and because it’s something we neither want to see happen or believe ever would. But purely by way of an intellectual exercise, let’s ask the question.

Ever since being unveiled as the figurehead of the anti-independence campaign, Alistair Darling has insisted that a Yes vote in 2014 would be “irrevocable”. It’s a word that crops up frequently from the No camp, in what appears to be a strange and misconceived extension of the standard-issue fearmongering approach which has characterised most Unionist campaigning to date.

(Because we very much doubt that even one person who votes for independence will be doing so with the thought “Och, if it doesn’t work out we’ll just rejoin the UK”.)

Nevertheless, if we’re really “better together”, why would it be impossible to go back?

Read the rest of this entry →

Look, it’s not that we like to brag about our predicting skills, but:

Read the rest of this entry →

From the BBC’s “at a glance guide to the referendum agreement” feature, written by the Corporation’s political reporter Andrew Black:

What the agreement actually says, if you bother to read it properly:

(Severin Carrell of the Guardian made the same mistake, incidentally. We’ve let Mr Black know, and we’ll watch with interest to see if the BBC corrects its error as quickly as Mr Carrell did when we pointed it out to him. EDIT: the article has now been fixed, but with no acknowledgement of the fact and with the “last edited” timestamp at the top of the page not changed. Naughty, BBC.)

We don’t want to be too obnoxious about it – heaven knows we can all get a bit mixed-up now and again amid the heat and chaos of battle – but the matter of who conducts the referendum seems to us to be a fairly important one to get right first time. You know where to come if you want things reported accurately, readers.

We mark the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, not the day it opened.

Imagine if it were otherwise. Imagine if someone were to propose commemorating the dead of the Holocaust on the 14th of June rather than the 27th of January, because it was a pleasant summer morning rather than a bitterly cold winter one when the first transport of prisoners was marched through the infamous “Arbeit Macht Frei” gates.

There would be revulsion, disbelief and horror at such a sick notion, and rightly so.

World War 1 killed ten times as many people as died in Auschwitz, and almost three times as many as were murdered in the entire Nazi extermination programme. For the past 94 years humanity has marked their deaths on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, because that moment in 1918 was when the guns of the Western Front finally fell silent. Yet a little under two years from now, that solemn tradition will be cast aside in favour of a lavish series of public events to be held not on the day the senseless slaughter ended, but on the day it began.

It’s hard to come up with a plausible or convincing reason why.

Read the rest of this entry →

Sorry folks, we’ve got a cold coming on and we’ve been a bit enfeebled today, so we’ve only just caught up with this. Evidently, independence campaigners such as ourselves were being far too complacent when we imagined that 2012 was the last opportunity for a major Union Jack-waving Festival Of Britishness. Stupidly, it hadn’t occurred to us that in a time when we can’t even afford to pay Disability Living Allowance to blind paraplegics with terminal cancer because the lazy scrounging scum could be out getting work as draught excluders or something, the country’s economy could manage to find 50 million quid spare for a big knees-up to celebrate the START of a war.

After all, World War 1 isn’t generally thought of as all that great a thing. Millions of young lives were squandered senselessly on the Western Front and elsewhere, not in the heroic defence of an innocent nation invaded by an aggressor but because of some inept, spectacularly stupid political manoeuverings and failures of diplomacy. When it finally ground to an end having slaughtered the flower of a generation, the peace-making process was handled so ineptly that it set up another world war just 20 years later, this one three times more catastrophic. Sounds well worth a party.

In our Lemsip-befuddled state, we can’t actually figure out if this is in fact all a ploy specifically designed to foil the referendum or if the Tories really do just get a massive hard-on for ANYTHING that’ll let them wave a flag around and reminisce fondly about the Empire and the spilled blood of the working class. If we do, we’ll let you know.

Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories have all recently called for the good people of England to speak up for the Union, and express how much they value the contribution of Scots to the UK. Helpfully (and very rarely), the BBC has allowed comments on a Scottish story today to give them the opportunity. We must admit, we didn’t manage to get through everything, but these are some of the ones that DIDN’T get modded off.

Read the rest of this entry →

If you’re interested in Scottish constitutional politics, you can save yourself a lot of time and angst by reading Wings Over Scotland. The mainstream media has agonised all year over procedural aspects of the independence referendum, but we came right out and called it when some people were still sleeping off their Hogmanay hangovers:

“We’re going to nail our colours to the mast and make a plain assertion – the referendum WILL happen, and it WILL be conducted on the Scottish Government’s terms. We suspect that in the interests of appearing reasonable, Alex Salmond will concede either the inclusion of 16/17-year-olds on the franchise or the involvement of the Electoral Commission – but not both – and the UK Government will ultimately grant the Section 30 order necessary to remove any possibility of legal challenge.

(Also, after a great show of pretend reluctance and protest, the Scottish Government will accept the UK Government’s insistence that the referendum must comprise just a single question, because that’s what the SNP actually wants – it just wants the Unionist side to be the one that rules out the popular devo-max option, rather than itself, and helpfully the Unionists are playing right into nationalist hands there.)

For all the heat and fury, it will be so. You can quote us on that.”

Nine months later, guess what?

Read the rest of this entry →

Without setting out deliberately to be so, a site like Wings Over Scotland is inherently cynical. If you set yourself up to monitor the media, it’s implicit that you think the media needs monitoring. And as a professional journalist, both staff and freelance, for over 20 years, I’ve seen enough shady goings-on not to be shocked very often.

But today, for perhaps the first time since starting the site, I find myself genuinely filled with anger, disgust and contempt for the people plying my trade in Scotland.

Today’s Scotland On Sunday lead story isn’t even remotely close to the first time we’ve seen a Scottish newspaper cross the line from spin and smear into outright lie. It is, however, by a very considerable distance the most despicable.

Read the rest of this entry →

This week, we’ve been wondering just how much of a coincidence it was that Johann Lamont’s dramatic, rushed-sounding policy speech out of nowhere (surely that terrible pinched-from-the-Tories “something for nothing” line can’t have been the result of any extended scrutiny?) happened three days after the first independence rally.

Saturday 22nd September 2012 will go down in history as the moment the starting gun was fired on the referendum campaign for real. The event was a chance to show the public of Scotland that it wasn’t only “weirdy beardies” and “cyber-nuts” who support independence but everyday hard-working people just like the majority of other Scots.

And we can’t help but ponder whether the event put the wind up Scottish Labour a lot more than they spent that weekend frantically trying to pretend.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’re confused again, readers. At its forthcoming conference the SNP will debate whether or not to change its policy on NATO membership, in full public view. After the debate, a vote of the party’s membership will determine what the policy will be. This wholly open and natural political process is of course variously described by the Scottish media as a “split”, a “U-turn”, an “internal battle” and a source of “rebel fury”.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats refuse to allow the YesScotland campaign to take a stall at their conference, and when some members offer dissent, leader Willie Rennie angrily castigates them in a letter describing their actions as a “disrespectful stunt”, on the grounds that the media might have covered the stall’s presence.

(Great work keeping it out of the press, Willie. Just the three stories in a week, then.)

We feel we must have somehow misunderstood the meanings of the words “liberal” and “democratic”. Can anyone point us towards a more up-to-date dictionary?