Wings Over Scotland

Scotland has been aflame with talk in recent weeks of whether universal benefits are sustainable or not, and in particular those which apply to our elderly. But there’s an enormous falsity at the heart of the position taken by the Unionist parties, because they refuse to consider independence as a possible solution and base their argument on the premise of a bankrupt UK constantly slashing the Scottish Government’s block grant for the forseeable future under a programme of savage austerity (which would be the same regardless of whether the Tories or Labour were in charge).

There is, of course, an alternative. By most sane assessments, an independent Scotland’s economic starting position would be pretty similar to that of the UK. Both sides of the debate quibble over a percentage point here or there, but the reality is that at least to begin with the amount of money in the pot would be more or less the same.

(Move a few decades into the future and an independent Scotland will either be drowning in wealth from a world-beating renewable energy industry, or crushed by debt because all the oil’s run out, depending on your ideological persuasion.)

The point the No camp must doggedly and repeatedly turn a deaf ear to, however, is that while an independent Scotland might not have vastly more money to spend than it does now, it wouldn’t have to spend it on the same things.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’ve taken quite a lot of cold medication this week, readers, and it’s caused us to have a bit of an epiphany. We’ve realised that our constant advocacy of independence is a recklessly optimistic position which takes no account of the very real dangers of separating Scotland from the rest of the UK (and the world), and that in order to be responsible citizens we ought to present a more balanced picture.

We’ve decided, therefore, to use this page to keep track of the numerous and often serious potential consequences of a Yes vote in 2014, as helpfully pointed out by our concerned countrymen south of the border and the cooler heads in our own land.

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.

So that’s that, then. There’s going to be a referendum on independence, with no legal challenges. The entire Scottish media’s about to be choked with analyses of the 30-paragraph agreement signed today by Alex Salmond, David Cameron, Nicola Sturgeon and Michael Moore, so we’re going to aim for the most concise one.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’ve noted before that it’s both naive and unreasonable to expect the BBC to be impartial with regard to Scottish independence. The Corporation has a direct vested interest in the status quo, partly financial and partly self-preservation. It’s important, when watching BBC Scotland in particular, to keep in mind that independence will mean the journalists, producers etc in question losing their jobs and careers.

(They would, of course, in theory be able to join any replacement state broadcaster, but it’s fair to say that many of them have already burned their bridges in that respect.)

If you think that’s a little paranoid, have a listen to these two short interviews by (we think) Auntie Beeb’s chief political correspondent Norman Smith, which are currently being looped on the BBC website in the absence of any developments in the meeting between Alex Salmond and David Cameron.

Interview with Michael Moore

Interview with Nicola Sturgeon

Does the tone and content of the questioning strike you as fair and balanced? Or does one interviewee get, let’s say, a rather more sympathetic and less confrontational hearing than the other? We wouldn’t like to say. You call it.

There’s an intriguing story in the Sunday Times today, which quotes the Conservative former Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth describing the Prime Minister as “Pontius Pilate” and granting the First Minister “a walkover” in respect of the negotiations over the independence referendum, which are apparently to be finally concluded with the signing of an agreement in Edinburgh tomorrow.

We;ve attached the full story below so you can have a wee keek through the Times’ paywall and read it for yourself. But we can’t help wondering: if the PM is Pontius Pilate in this analogy, then who is Alex Salmond?

Read the rest of this entry →

BBC Radio Scotland’s phone-in show “Call Kaye” was interesting this morning, which isn’t a sentence you can use every day. The main topic of discussion was David Cameron’s planned 2014 “commemoration” of the start of World War 1, and as host Kaye Adams noted repeatedly during the programme, the overwhelming opinion among listeners was that it was a disgraceful and cynical piece of political opportunism.

Read the rest of this entry →

(The long version can be found here.)

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 →

Is it even worth us pulling apart Ruth Davidson’s speech(es) to the Conservative Party Annual Rally in Birmingham yesterday? For one thing, no media outlet appears to consider either of them significant enough to have recorded them and put them online. Not even the Scottish Conservatives’ own website has bothered to publish a transcript of either speech, which is moderately astonishing.

For another, Davidson herself was frantically distancing herself from her own words on the evening’s political shows, blaming the Scottish Parliament Information CEntre (SPICE) for providing accurate answers when she asked it the wrong questions. For yet another, the Guardian has already done a pretty decent job of annihilating her figures, as have numerous others.

But most tellingly of all, the entire attack on public-sector employment as a drain on “wealth-creators” is so laughably hypocritical coming from Davidson – who as far as we can tell has NEVER had a job anywhere BUT the public sector – that it can’t possibly be taken seriously. (She’s currently lucratively employed by the taxpayer as an MSP, following another well-paid job in the public sector working for the BBC).

Because if Ruth Davidson genuinely believed that all public-sector employees (you know the sort – nurses, teachers, firemen, civil servants, binmen, lollipop ladies and the like) were worthless parasites sponging off the 12% of heroic entrepreneurs who bring in all the bacon, she’d put her money where her mouth is and resign. Until she does, we can only assume that everything she says is some sort of ironic Situationist prank, and avoid falling for the joke by dignifying it with analysis it doesn’t deserve.

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 →