Wings Over Scotland

There was an interesting article in today’s Herald entitled “SNP snub plan for more tax powers at Holyrood”. It centred around the latest report from the Institute of Public Policy Research, advocating a new form of further devolution settlement (dubbed “Devo More”) as a solution to Scotland’s problems rather than for independence.

The article itself was devoid of any analysis of the report’s findings, though in fairness to the Herald it did note that the IPPR “has close ties to Labour”, thereby alerting suspicious readers to potential bias within the document.

As far as many independence supporters are concerned, any offer of further devolution at this point is merely an empty promise of “jam tomorrow”. Had any Westminster party seriously intended to increase the level of devolution to Scotland, runs their argument, then they could have done so during the Calman Commission, the Scotland Act or more recently by including an offer of further devolution on the ballot paper for the 2014 independence referendum. They did none of these things.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’ve already highlighted the absurdity of the comments made by several Unionist politicians last week (in both the Commons and the Lords) about the Scottish Parliament being “undemocratic” and a “one-man dictatorship”. But we only mentioned Scottish representation in doing so. What about the whole UK?

The majority – 53% – of votes cast by the British electorate in 2010 were worthless, because they were cast for candidates who didn’t win the seat they contested and are therefore simply thrown in the bin by the “first past the post” electoral system. Thousands of people were locked out of polling stations across the country on the evening of the vote, but it didn’t really matter, because statistically speaking their vote would probably have been completely ignored anyway.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’re indebted to commenter “DougtheDug” on A Sair Fecht for spotting this one. On Tuesday in the House of Commons section 30 debate, Labour MP Ian Davidson bitterly attacked the Scottish Government for allegedly timing the independence referendum to coincide – at least to within six months – with the 700th anniversary of the Battle Of Bannockburn. (Ignoring the fact that the referendum would have happened years ago had it not been vigorously opposed and blocked by Labour.)

Davidson claimed that the timing amounted to “celebrating the murder of hundreds or thousands of English people“, and accused the SNP of exploiting anti-English sentiment for “partisan advantage”. It was a contemptible enough piece of dog-whistle politics in its own right, but all the more extraordinarily hypocritical in the light of this:

Lurking in the Westminster archives is an Early Day Motion from late 2003, in which Mr Davidson was happy to attach his name to a Parliamentary celebration – tabled by the Conservative MP for Romford, Andrew Rosindell – of what we presume we must call “the murder of hundreds or thousands of French and Spanish people”.

We must admit, we’re a little confused. Apparently openly and explicitly rejoicing at the historic deaths of enemy troops is fine if you’re a British nationalist, but disgusting, racist political chicanery if you’re a Scottish one (even when you’re not actually doing it). Can anyone point us at the rulebook for this sort of thing?

At the time we write this, the Herald’s inaccurate story about Faslane jobs remains uncorrected. But as we were scouring the page last night for any sign of the Herald’s “clarification” of its figures, we stumbled across a gem in the comments.

As long-term readers will probably be aware, Terry Kelly isn’t just some random comments-page troll. He is in fact an elected Labour councillor for the lucky people of Paisley North West, though such is the volume of his daily outpourings in various newspapers (he’s one of the few people the Herald appears to see fit to bless with automatic comment approval) that it’s a wonder he finds any time to represent them.

Terry’s we-wish-it-was-unique blend of arrogance, smugness and complete ignorance is pretty standard No-campaign troll fodder, but the example above is particularly fine.

Read the rest of this entry →

Not sure this one really needs much in the way of explanation, but the top part refers to the democratic proportionality of the Scottish Parliament (a “dictatorship of one man” according to Mr Sarwar), and the bit in the middle illustrates the democratic proportionality of Scottish representation at Westminster.

The most interesting thing about the lies Scottish Labour MPs tell, we think, is their sheer transparency. They really do think you’re that stupid.

We thought you might like to see the statistics for Tuesday’s section 30 debate in the House Of Commons in at-a-glance pictorial form, so we’re delighted to share this graphic sent in by alert reader Stewart Bremner. (NB we default to anonymity when people send us things, just in case we get them in trouble at work or something, but we’re always very happy to give full attribution where desired.)

Click the image for full-size version. Detailed data here (OpenOffice format).

Those of you who joined us in watching some of the six-hour Nat-Bashing Festival in the House of Commons yesterday will be aware that it set a high standard of jaw-dropping “Did he/she REALLY just say that?” televised democracy. (Some edited highlights.) The first couple of hours can be viewed here, with the rest here.

Speakers who supported independence were given around 30 minutes in total of yesterday’s “debate”, with the second being cut short in order to allow more Labour and Tory MPs to line up and explain their heartfelt hatred of the SNP, in case anyone hadn’t picked it up from the previous five hours of contributions.

Later today the House of Lords, which has no SNP representation at all, will discuss the same issue. You should be able to watch it live at this link from after around 4pm. It ought to be entertaining. We’ve made this post so people can discuss it in the comments without having to commandeer another article. Have fun.

A few isolated gems we couldn’t find room for in the first piece.

Any more we missed? Send in your favourites and we’ll add them.

Read the rest of this entry →

Ten days ago, Scottish Labour “deputy” leader Anas Sarwar issued a press release in his capacity as head of Labour’s referendum campaign, noting that “[Nicola Sturgeon] is right to say there has been a lot of negative campaigning. We will be raising the level of debate and ensuring that Scotland gets the level of debate it deserves.”

Here are some extracts from Sarwar and his independence-fearing colleagues’ contributions to yesterday’s epic House of Commons “debate” (in which one side got a little over 10 times as long to put its case as the other) on the motion giving the Scottish Parliament the power to conduct the independence referendum.

Make your own judgement as to how they did, and the level of debate they apparently consider Scotland deserves.

Read the rest of this entry →

We hate to be banging on this drum again, but we can’t help asking: if these British nationalists had instead been Scottish nationalists, setting cars on fire and attacking policemen because they wanted the Saltire flown more often from public buildings, would the Scottish media be covering it in such a low-key, non-political way?

That’s a rhetorical question, obviously.

Read the rest of this entry →

Scotland on Sunday today carries an interview with Michael Moore, in which the Scottish Secretary rather undermines the No campaign’s constant demands for “detail” about an independent Scotland by admitting that the Westminster government will refuse to discuss matters like Scotland’s possible share of UK debt in advance of the referendum. There’s an even stranger passage shortly afterwards, though:

“Moore also signalled that his government would play hard-ball if Scotland did vote for independence – a scenario that would force the UK administration to negotiate an independence settlement with the Scottish administration. In the event of a Yes vote, Moore said the UK government would have to “prioritise” the interests of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish and would be unable to give the Scottish Government everything that it wanted.”

Well, duh. If Scotland votes for independence, then any UK government minister will by definition be acting on the sole behalf of “the English, Welsh and Northern Irish”. Their ONLY responsibility will be to try to get the best possible deal for those people, in a negotiation in which Scotland is on the opposite side of the table. Anything else would plainly be a gross dereliction of duty.

It’s a bit like Ally McCoist saying that if The Rangers were to be drawn against Celtic in the Scottish Cup, he would “have to prioritise the interests of Rangers fans and would be unable to give Neil Lennon everything he wanted” – true, for sure, but as much of a big fat waste of time and newsprint as leading with the front-page headline that the Sun is hot and the sea is wet.

Scotland on Sunday’s circulation fell by almost 20% in the last year.

The final aspect of the independence debate touched on by Alistair Darling’s interview on Newsnight Scotland last night brought some more much-needed clarity to the situation. In this segment of the programme the issue being pursued by Gordon Brewer was what the Unionist parties were going to offer the Scottish electorate in the way of greater devolution in the event of a No vote.

Uncharacteristically, Darling was a little evasive when Brewer first raised the issue, but thankfully some hard facts were soon forthcoming.

Read the rest of this entry →