…according to today’s edition of The Times, is Alex Salmond. If you were wondering:
“We are fully aware of the irony of awarding this title to someone who does not believe in the idea of Britain itself.”
You can read the full story below.
Perhaps it's because the source of the news is the notoriously thirsty Labour peer Lord Foulkes, but we're amazed more hasn't been made of yesterday's bringing forward of an amendment to the Scotland Bill by the aforementioned Baron of Cumnock. We're not entirely sure how this fits in with the good Lord's previous assertion just last month that the Bill would in fact have to be scrapped altogether, but if passed the amendment would be nothing short of political dynamite.
At a stroke it would grant what amounts to "devo max", massively spiking the SNP's guns by delivering overnight the constitutional arrangement favoured by around 70% of the Scottish people. The battle lines of the independence referendum, which are currently hardening with every passing day around the two most extreme options, would be hugely blurred, and it would seem obvious that full independence would be far more likely to be rejected by the electorate, if only in favour of giving the new settlement a fair crack of the whip first.
We can find no informed commentator anywhere in the professional media offering a view as to the amendment's likely chances of success, and even the blogosphere has shown almost no interest, so we can only assume that they're low. We must admit that, not for the first time, we're at a loss to understand the FUD camp's ineptitude.
We don’t intend to make a habit of punching holes in the Herald’s new paywall for people to have a free keek through, but an opinion column in today’s edition deserves a much wider audience, including those among us who live in places it’s not possible to buy the paper at all. It’s a piece by W. Elliot Bulmer, author and the research director of the Constitutional Commission, and it’s about the little-known draft document drawn up by the SNP for the written constitution of an independent Scotland. (Almost alone among democracies, the UK has no formal codified constitution.)
It’s an absolutely fascinating read, both in purely technical terms and political ones, and if you’ve already used up your free preview on the site you can see it below.
The influential think-tank Reform Scotland has just published what you might think was good news – a report suggesting that an independent Scotland could be a world leader in the production of renewable energy, and generate billions of pounds a year for the Scottish economy by 2020. The organisation specifies, however, that in order to do so, Scotland would need full control over energy policy devolved from Westminster.
While the Herald [paywall] runs the story as news, free of editorial comment and focusing on the positive angle, the Scotsman's approach could barely be more different. It takes just one sentence before the paper rustles up an objection, and much of its piece is subsequently devoted to the angry complaints of Labour MP Tom Greatrex, who asserts that the Scots are incapable of taking advantage of this bounty, issuing what the paper describes as "a stark warning that handing full powers over energy to Holyrood would harm Scotland’s economy".
Astonishingly, despite Reform Scotland's explicit statement that only full control for the Scottish Parliament would enable the financial benefits to accrue, Greatrex insists:
"No credible or serious player in [the] energy sector agrees separation would do anything other than make it harder for Scotland to realise its vast renewable energy potential."
Or in other words, the traditional rallying call of the Unionists – Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid to run its own affairs. (Though in this case, perhaps "too wee, too rich and too stupid" would be more accurate.) Handed an enormous treasure-trove by nature, we simple dimwitted Jocks would make a giant hash of it, and so can't be trusted. It would appear that Greatrex feels only the Tories and Lib Dems at Westminster have the competence to handle Scotland's energy riches, and of course to spend them wisely. We wonder if Scottish voters feel the same way.
The media commentariat – or at least, that majority of it which sits in the Unionist camp – has been in quite the foment ever since David Cameron's refusal to do whatever it was he refused to do at the EU summit this week. (Despite thousands of column inches and airtime minutes having been devoted to hyperbole on the subject this week, nobody actually seems very sure of what, if anything, has or is about to meaningfully change in the lives of the British citizenry as a result.)
In Scotland's press, the consensus is that whatever it was that happened (or possibly didn't happen) is a massive game-changer in the campaign for independence. Pundit after pundit has lined up to hyperbolically proclaim the huge impact that this will have on the referendum, and more broadly on the SNP's thinking with regard to its attitude to Europe. The Scotsman in particular is beside itself with excitement – Eddie Barnes posits some worst-case scenarios including the UK leaving the EU entirely while the paper's twin old Tory buffers Alf Young and Bill Jamieson both tack a few paragraphs of Scottish scaremongering onto the back of a pieces about the ramifications for Britain generally, with Jamieson's ending with the spectacular assertion that "an independent Scotland would be little more than the fetid fag-end of a Vichy vassalage".
Everyone agrees that as a matter of urgency the First Minister must rush back from China with a definitive statement on what this all means for Scotland, its future choice of currency and its future relationship with the EU, lest the electorate be left uninformed on these critical issues when the referendum rolls around in three or four years time. Which, our more alert viewers will probably be pondering, is missing the point by a fair few kilometres.
Fearful of triumphalism over this week's poll results, we've been doing a little bit of digging here at WingsLand. And sure enough, we found some compelling evidence from this very year that pollsters Ipsos Mori are a "notoriously unreliable" outfit with a track record of inaccuracy when it comes to Scottish voting intentions:
We can only assume that the recent polls have been a parcel of such rogues.
There's been so much happening lately that we can barely keep track of it, let alone attend to such trivial matters as real life as well, so let's see if we can get up to speed on the most interesting stuff quickly. It seems like everyone's talking about Scandinavia at the moment, as the SNP revealed that they're keen to see a future Scotland align itself in a slightly more Nordic way than a European one.
The Guardian, Caledonian Mercury and Scotsman have run a fascinating variety of perspectives on the issue lately, and this blog is certainly very comfortable with the idea that an independent Scotland might choose to run its society along such lines rather than follow the neo-liberal path that's done such a good job for Europe lately.
Hamish McDonnell's article in the CalMerc perceptively points out the conflict between the high-tax, high-quality lifestyle of the Scandinavian nations and the low-tax Ireland-style model the SNP have previously advocated, but Donald Adamson writing in Bella Caledonia comes in with a timely piece, ostensibly focusing on some election-result analysis but which ends by suggesting the SNP might stand to gain significantly by making exactly such a move towards the more social-democratic positions occupied by Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
Malcolm Harvey over on Thinking Unpopular Thoughts finally got round to his delayed assessment of the state of the SNP this week, completing his analysis of all five of the parties in the Scottish Parliament. And given that the SNP is currently riding at a dizzying all-time high in every measurable sense it's a pretty downbeat view, echoing (and indeed directly quoting) many of the recent complaints of the erudite legal blogger Andrew "Lallands Peat Worrier" Tickell. Over on A Burdz Eye View, meanwhile, Kate Higgins is bemoaning that the SNP's recent announcements about future projects have been overly "macho", and haven't focused enough on wimmin.
Here at Wings over Scotland, though, we must admit to being bewildered by the wave of negativity from some nationalists lately. Is there something in our national DNA that tends to self-destruction? Heck, you'd only have to look at our diet and drinking habits to find some supporting evidence for that theory. But is it in our politics too?
You know the political landscape of Scotland is in serious turmoil when this happens.
(See here for the whole story.)
"As we get closer to the referendum, people will realise that staying within the Union has substantial benefits for Scotland."
(James Kelly, Labour MSP, December 2011) (at 4m 20s)"We've got a distinctive argument to make on the power of Scotland inside the United Kingdom."
(Johann Lamont, Labour leadership contender, December 2011) (at 23m 08s)
Sadly, both Mr Kelly and Ms Lamont ran out of time before they could actually explain what these substantial benefits and distinctive arguments were. Oh well.
Still waiting.
There are many good reasons not to envy Scottish Labour members, but the miserable choice they're being offered for their new leader must be near the top of the list right now. Last night's edition of Newsnight Scotland was devoted to a hustings between the three hopeful candidates at the BBC studios in Glasgow, and watching it felt like an intrusion on private grief.
To be fair, the setting didn't do much to portray the candidates in a good light. Newsnight's Raymond Buchanan was a clumsy host, alternately barging in over the top of the three when they were trying to give an answer then letting them waffle on when they were saying nothing at all. The audience was also a limp rag, putting up mostly feeble, long-winded and vague questions capable of inspiring nothing but empty platitudes from the contenders.
(One bloke in a red tie wasted about a minute of the show's limited airtime wittering on incomprehensibly about sport before Buchanan finally cut him off in exasperation, and the final audience contribution was particularly toe-curling. Some studenty girl came out with a half-baked Marxist polemic demanding to know what "direct action" the candidates were going to do about the nasty bankers and such. When Buchanan asked her what sort of direct action she'd like to see taken, she clearly wasn't expecting to be asked to provide a constructive suggestion and just stammered that she wanted to hear the candidates' plans. Even the vacant rhetoric she got in reply was better than the question deserved.)
But even allowing for the difficult circumstances, McIntosh, Lamont and Harris offered little to fire enthusiasm among the comrades, or even to distinguish themselves from each other. The only partial exception was Tom Harris, and we still can't tell if he's serious or just trying to use shock tactics to kick some life and sense into his party. Either way, we're not sure that coming out loudly and proudly in favour of tuition fees and nuclear power stations is the way to lead Labour to glorious recovery in Scotland.
Harris is also a dyed-in-the-wool Nat-basher, a strategy which failed Labour on an epic scale in 2011 and which Lamont and (especially) McIntosh appear to be backing away from as fast as is decent. We know these things because all three spent the vast majority of the broadcast talking not about Labour, or even about the Westminster coalition that's imposing savage austerity cuts on Scotland, but about the SNP.
In the wake of a duller-than-usual First Minister's Questions, most of the press today is covering the report released by the Electoral Commission detailing the various parties' spending in the 2011 Holyrood election. The headline soundbite is that the SNP's expenditure was, in the words of The Scotsman, "close to the combined total of the three other largest parties", at £1.14m compared to £1.27m for Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories together.
Predictably enough, Labour seize the opportunity to complain about large donations, with MSP Drew Smith pouting that "the SNP is addicted to big money, reliant on huge donations from a small number of wealthy individuals", in the light of the SNP having received two such large sums in recent months from the will of the former Makar Edwin Morgan and lottery winners Chris and Colin Weir.
We're not aware of Mr Smith having raised any such objections when, for example, Lord Sainsbury donated £2.5m to Labour in 2003 – eclipsing the SNP's two big donations put together – but we'll gladly publish any corrections should he have done so. We're also not sure that Mr Smith's party will enthusiastically welcome his objections to large donations from wealthy individuals, as a cap on such contributions (currently being proposed by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life) would have slashed Labour's income by 72% over the last five and a half years.
Most of the coverage today notes the growing financial health of the SNP compared to the other parties relative only to the situation in the 2007 Holyrood election, with its spending rising while that of the Unionist parties declines. What we found curious, though, was that none of the papers took the trouble to also make what would seem to be the most obvious comparison in a recent Scottish context – the parties' expenditures in 2011 compared to the 2010 UK General Election.
We had a little dig around on the Electoral Commission's website, and turned up its 2010 report, whose figures reveal some moderately interesting things.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
