Wings Over Scotland

The gigantic-clown-shoed bunglemuppet that is Scottish Tory MP Ross Thomson was galumphing around social media yesterday, quoting a notoriously dim-witted Yoon troll to the effect that the Scottish Government could (and therefore presumably should) use its own money to compensate the “WASPI women” – a group who’ve been robbed of years of rightful pension payments by the UK government changing the rules after they’d already qualified for their pensions.

Which throws up a whole series of questions.

Read the rest of this entry →

In some little-noticed news slipped out last Friday, it was revealed that Kezia Dugdale is to take up a position on the governing body of the Scottish Parliament.

Our favourite thing was her quote on the nomination:

“I’m very pleased to be Labour’s nominee for the SPCB. Having argued for gender balance, I’m glad that at least two of the five positions will now be held be women.”

…which suggested that she was unhappy exact gender balance hadn’t been achieved by placing two-and-a-half women on the board. (Unless she was getting at some sort of alternative solution, we suppose.)

But since the Herald raised the subject, it seemed a good time to take a look at voters’ opinions as to whether she might be a fit and proper person for such a role.

Read the rest of this entry →

So this one was interesting.

Read the rest of this entry →

This is the well-known hardcore Corbynite commentator John McTernan on the radio yesterday, detailing how outrageous it would be for politicians to attempt to block a second referendum on a divisive but important issue.

(Talkback, BBC Radio Ulster, 4 January 2018)
.

No, not THAT kind of second referendum, silly!

On a number of previous occasions we’ve highlighted the weird discrepancy between the undivided loathing of the Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act in the Scottish media and the Act’s overwhelming popularity with the Scottish public.

You will struggle to ever hear a voice anywhere in the media in favour of it, yet there has never been a law in the history of the Holyrood parliament that is as universally backed by the electorate as the OBFA. Support for it crosses party lines, unites men and women, the old and the young, the rich and the poor, Yes voters and No voters, Celtic fans and “Rangers” fans, football lovers and football haters, and pretty much any other groups you can think of.

Despite their own voters wanting to retain it, however, the combined opposition parties may well succeed in having the Act repealed this year, for reasons of their own that we can’t begin to rationally explain.

Meanwhile, every party at Holyrood – this time including the SNP – looks as though they may be preparing to come together and implement the LEAST-wanted legislation (in terms of public opinion) that the Parliament will have ever seen.

But which legislation are we talking about?

Read the rest of this entry →

Below is a letter that we sent this week to the Electoral Commission.

We thought you might be interested in it.

Read the rest of this entry →

More data from our latest poll:

Almost 30% of No voters still believe the decision on whether Scotland should vote on independence again should be a matter for the Scottish Government (which already, as we know, has a Parliamentary mandate for it), not the UK government in London.

Very nearly half of 2017 Labour voters (excluding DKs), and almost 40% of Lib Dems, also think their own parties should butt out and leave it to the government Scotland chose, not the one England chose.

And among demographic groups, men divided a pretty close but still clear 54/46 in favour of the Scottish Government, with women a much stronger 61/39. Young people were an overwhelming 75/25 for Holyrood, with middle-aged and over-55s cancelling each other out by splitting 56/44 and 44/56 respectively on the issue. The wealthier ABC1 demographic were 50/50 and less well-off C2DEs a thumping 65/35.

The argument has been won, just like the vote in the Scottish Parliament. All that remains to be seen is whether the UK government continues to play by Madrid Rules.

In the Guardian today:

If only we had some data on that oh wait of course we do.

Read the rest of this entry →

Alert readers will have noted that last night we took down our story about Scotland In Union‘s spreadsheet of all the various super-wealthy Dukes, Duchesses, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses, Countesses, Sirs, Lords, Ladies, Colonels and Brigadiers who fund their “grassroots” anti-independence operation. (AGM pictured below.)

We believe we’re entitled under the law to run the article, and hope to have it back up soon, but frankly we don’t even want to think about the cost of calling a top media lawyer on a Sunday that’s also Hogmanay, so that might have to wait a day or two.

And anyway, it’s not even nearly the most interesting aspect of the affair.

Read the rest of this entry →

In our latest Panelbase poll, as usual we took the opportunity to ask various social-attitudes questions as well as political ones, and some which span both categories. One of the most controversial posts ever on Wings addressed the subject of Gaelic, and having given everyone two-and-a-bit years to calm the hell down we thought we’d see what the Scottish electorate thought.

That’s a pretty tight call. Let’s have a wee delve in the data depths.

Read the rest of this entry →

Readers, have you ever noticed how the letters pages of Scottish newspapers are full every day of the same names, a clutch of a couple of dozen super-hardcore frothing ultra-Yoons tirelessly and reflexively raging against independence, the SNP and pretty much anything without a Union Jack on it?

Have you ever found yourself thinking it must be some sort of co-ordinated group that gets together, plans topics in advance then writes in backing each other up, to create an illusion of speaking for a wide cross-section of society, before dismissing that idea as a daft paranoid conspiracy and getting on with your day?

Because we thought that too, until an alert reader infiltrated it.

Our very favourite bit is “we must not advertise the existence of the group. It can be mentioned verbally, in safe environment, that some people share letters/encourage each other, but anything more risks editors discriminating, nationalists reacting, and this diverse group being portrayed as a monolithic campaign”.

Probably don’t put it in an email, then. But your secret’s safe with us, lads.