Wings Over Scotland

Pretty much every newspaper and media source ran with a particular statistic as their headline from the published conclusions of the UK government's consultation on the independence referendum. More or less everywhere led with the 75% of respondents who wanted a single Yes/No question, which is mildly curious because it's not really news – the stated preference of every party and MSP in the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Government itself, is already for a single question.

The Secretary of State for Scotland loudly proclaimed that the consultation had therefore delivered a mandate to get on with the referendum on the UK government's terms, meaning a single question as quickly as possible and no votes for 16/17-year-olds. But the respondents to the consultation actually presented a much more significant demand: a similarly large majority of them – 72% – expressed the view that what they really wanted the UK government to do was butt the hell out altogether and give the Scottish Government the power to get on with it.

For some reason, Moore and the Scottish media weren't so keen to draw attention to that particular finding. But it would appear to mean that the electorate overwhelmingly want the Scottish Parliament – the only body which has an actual democratic mandate to hold a referendum on independence at all – to handle the entire matter without interference from Moore and his coalition colleagues.

We look forward, therefore, to the Scottish Secretary and his chums – having made their point and stated their views – keeping their noses out from now on, waiting for the Scottish Government to conclude its own (far more popular) consultation, and make its own decisions about the number and wording of the questions, the timing of the vote and the extent of the franchise. As democrats, we're sure they'll happily comply with the wishes of the people.

The agenda behind the Unionist parties and media's concerted smear campaign against the Scottish Government's independence-referendum consultation has become a little clearer today, with the publication of the full data regarding the UK Government's own survey on the subject. Which, purely for the purposes of local colour, we'll passingly note was impartially called "The Referendum on Separation for Scotland" and opens with the following words:

"We believe passionately in the United Kingdom and recognise the benefits it has brought to all of its citizens. For over 300 years the United Kingdom has brought people together in the most successful multi-national state the world has ever known. We want to keep the United Kingdom together."

(The Scottish Government consultation, in contrast, begins with the somewhat less partisan line "The people who live in Scotland are the best people to make decisions about Scotland’s future.")

Conducted by a committee on which no SNP representatives serve, the UK consultation attracted a dismal response by comparison. The Holyrood version, which is still ongoing, had as of Monday this week atttracted 11,986 contributions from members of the public so far. The Westminster report drew a pitiful 2,857 by comparison, but the picture is in fact even bleaker than that.

Of that 2,857 a staggering 1500 responses (or 53%) are believed to have come directly from the Scottish Labour website. Of those, almost half – 740 – used the exact pre-scripted wording written by Labour. (These numbers do not appear in the consultation document, but the latter was freely admitted by the Secretary of State for Scotland to several news sources this morning.)

Under the rules demanded by Labour this week for the Scottish Government's consultation, 739 of those submissions would have to be disqualified on the grounds of duplication, reducing the total number of valid responses to 2,118.

A further 101 respondents were anonymous, and another 118 were duplicate responses which didn't come from the Labour website. Removing those leaves the UK Government's consultation on the independence referendum based on just 1,899 responses from members of the public (that's one for every 34,229 people in the UK).

But perhaps more pertinent than this abysmal level of public confidence in the UK Government's consultation compared to the Scottish Government's one is the staggering degree to which Labour, rather than the general public, swamped the process in submissions. Of those 1,899 eligible responses, it would appear that 761 – or a tiny fraction under 40% – came directly from the Scottish Labour website.

So over half of all submissions, 40% of valid submissions, and an astonishing 25% of the entire consultation response made up of ineligible duplicate spam entries, came from Labour itself. Yet a compliant media has collaborated all week in creating a media portrayal of SNP "abuse" of the Scottish Government's consultation, based around just 3.5% of anonymous responses (contributions whose actual preferences, it should be noted, were not recorded, and which therefore may well in fact have been partly or even entirely from pro-Union supporters rather than nationalists).

We've said it before and we'll say it again – it's not paranoia if there really is a conspiracy against you. We doubt the electorate is all that concerned with the entire point-scoring business, but we're confident that those who are will have no difficulty in seeing the reality of what's been going on.

If you're finding all the polarised ideological debate about the Budget tax changes a bit hard to follow, Wings over Scotland is here to help. Simply put, what the Chancellor is apparently expecting us all to believe is essentially this:

"Dear Rich McWealthy,

We note that last year you had £40,000 of higher-rate taxable income. Well done you! We asked you to pay tax on that amount at 50% – sending you an invoice for £20,000 – but you employed a clever accountant (who you paid £1000) in order to reduce your tax bill to just £6,000.

This year, however, we see that you again have £40,000 of higher-rate taxable income. As we do not wish to see you flee the country and thereby damage the prospects of economic growth and wealth creation, we have decided to reduce the upper tax rate to 45%, so you'll only have to pay us £18,000 rather than the £20,000 we (with hindsight quite unreasonably) demanded last year.

We are sure that in the light of this new lower rate, you will be happy to send the Treasury a cheque for £18,000 rather than the £6,000 you paid last year, and that since the new rate is so much more agreeable you won't feel the need to procure the services of the clever accountant again (even though he'd still be saving you a whopping £11,000).

Thanks very much in advance for the extra money! We'll be spending it on keeping your local library open, so that all the OAPs and disabled people who can't afford their fuel bills any more will have somewhere to sleep next winter.

Love,
HMRC"

If you're swallowing that one, please get in touch immediately. We have an investment opportunity you're going to be keen to get involved with.

Ed Miliband's speech to the Scottish Labour conference, 2nd March 2012:

"If we believe in the idea of Scotland as a progressive beacon, why would we turn our back on the redistributive union – the United Kingdom?"

John McFall, Baron of Alcluith, Scottish Labour MP until 2010 and ex-chairman of the House Of Commons Treasury Committee, on BBC News at 8.46am, 21st March 2012:

"The North-South divide is getting bigger, not smaller."

When Labour ask you to vote for the status quo of the "redistributive Union" in 2014, readers, remember which direction it is that the party – by its own admission – wants to keep redistributing the UK's money in.

We were struck by a little parable in the Scotsman today, penned by our favourite teller of fireside morality tales Michael Kelly. (Who, as attentive readers will know, only fails to grace our “Zany Comedy Relief” links column due to the lack of any central hub address for his contributions to the paper.)

In what we could most charitably describe as a “there but for the grace of God” scenario, the man whose chairmanship of Celtic took it to within hours of the fate that’s currently befalling Rangers reiterated the tired old lie about how Scotland needs both of the Old Firm, but in the course of the article he also passed on an interesting fact we hadn’t previously known.

“Rangers were once before in financial difficulty. It was in the 1920’s when my grandfather, James Kelly (a former Scotland centre-half), was chairman of Celtic. Rangers had a temporary cash flow problem and their board came out to his house in Blantyre to explain the problem and seek help. Celtic gave them an unconditional short-term loan. The fact that Rangers felt able to ask and that Celtic willingly responded indicates that both clubs were aware of their inter-dependence.”

We couldn’t help but find the 1920s football situation strikingly analogous to the modern political one. Rangers and Celtic are supposedly the bitterest of rivals, and their fans treat each other like diametrically opposed poles, with honour and virtue the sole property of one side and bigotry and hatred found exclusively on the other. Yet when it comes to the crunch, the institutions themselves know which side their bread is buttered, and unhesitatingly come together in their mutual interest. Remind you of any two big political parties at all?

Read the rest of this entry →

We have a paid subscription to the Herald, but it's not working at the moment, locking us out from access. In case it's a widespread problem, we feel compelled to reprint this amazing story – which curiously didn't make the website front page today and was buried in the politics section – just to make absolutely sure that nobody misses it.

ENGLISH 'WOULD BOMB OUR AIRPORTS'

Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, in an independent Scotland, could be bombed by an English government if it was threatened by an unfriendly country, a former deputy leader of the UK Conservative Party has warned.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie also warned that SNP policies removing nuclear forces from Scottish bases and reducing Scotland's navy "essentially" to fishery protection vessels could make Scotland a war zone. He said a country with a few fishery protection vessels was "asking to be invaded".

The former Lord Advocate and Solicitor General said he did not see who might have "evil intentions" against England but he had missed "the import of the Balkan crisis and the ramifications of 9/11" and would hesitate "to predict the crises even in the rest of the century".

He foresaw the possibility of an enemy commander ordering the runways at Scottish airports to be cleared because his planes would be landing and "if that were to happen what alternative would England have but to come and bomb the hell out of Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport".

He suggested one solution would be to base the nuclear fleet, currently based on the Clyde, to Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands.

Ponder for a moment, readers, the media coverage if a significant SNP figure had suggested the reverse scenario. Wouldn't that be fun?

The desperate attempts of the Unionist parties to portray Scotland as a country too poor to survive on its own are nothing if not inventive. One might think that the publication of the latest GERS report, showing that Scotland contributes more to the UK Treasury than it receives back in public spending, would be pretty hard to turn into a plus point for the Union. But while Michael Moore’s strategy on behalf of the Con/Dem coalition has been simply to put his fingers in his ears and insist that Scotland would be poorer outside the United Kingdom in flat-out contradiction of the official facts, the Labour “opposition” are trying a rather different spin.

Scottish Labour’s finance spokesman and failed leadership contender Ken Macintosh issued a press release today in which he made the bizarre claim that the GERS figures somehow constituted a positive case for the Union:

“The GERS report published this morning demonstrates the significant benefit to Scotland of being part of the UK. The report shows that public expenditure in Scotland was last year between £11bn and £19bn higher than all the taxes generated in Scotland, including North Sea oil.”

But let’s look at that for a second, and generously gloss over the fact that Macintosh’s figures apparently have an 73% margin of error. (Is it £11bn or £19bn, Ken? That’d be a fairly important difference.) What Macintosh is actually saying is that Scotland, taken as part of the UK as a whole, ran a budget deficit in 2009/10.

Now, in itself (and leaving aside the comically wide range of Macintosh’s “figures”) that’s true. But then, almost every Western economy currently runs a budget deficit. The UK as a whole ran a vast budget deficit over the same period – just under £152bn – and has been doing so for many years, which is why we’re currently experiencing massive cuts, imposed by the Tories and Lib Dems but backed (and largely caused) by Labour. And since the Scottish Government has no borrowing powers and has to balance its own block grant, every penny of that £11bn (or £19bn) “Scottish” deficit in 2009/10 was actually run up by Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems at Westminster.

What McIntosh is in fact saying, then, is that Scotland can’t afford to stay in the UK. The logic of his position is that he’s calling for a further £11bn (or £19bn) of public-spending cuts in Scotland – to be imposed by Westminster, as Holyrood’s budget is fixed and wasn’t responsible for the deficit – so that we’ll be living within our means.

The SNP, on the other hand, would prefer Scotland to control its own finances, make huge savings by cutting things that the Scottish people don’t want (like Trident and PFI), and take full advantage of the likely increase in oil prices over the coming years to pay down our debts and fund investment in renewable resources for the future.

We don’t think it’s hard to spot which of those is the “positive” option.

We’ve noticed a recurring theme in the Secretary of State for Scotland’s speeches in recent months. Eschewing the line favoured by Labour and the Tories that the countries of the Union are “stronger together, weaker apart“, Michael Moore has come up with his own subtle twist on the theme.

“[the single energy market] is a positive example of why we are stronger together and poorer apart.” (3rd March 2012)

“Now, more than ever, this unity is important to protect us as individuals. In short, we are stronger together, and poorer apart.” (30th January 2012)

“This government believes passionately in the United Kingdom. It is a relationship which provides strength and security for all of our citizens – we are stronger together, and poorer apart.” (17th January 2012)

“We must show – we will show – that the nations of our country are stronger together and poorer apart.” (21st September 2011)

“My congratulations go to Johann Lamont on her election as Scottish Labour Leader and to Anas Sarwar on his election as Deputy Leader. I wish them well for the future. I am sure that in the months and years ahead they will add their strong voices to those already making the case that the nations of our country are stronger together and poorer apart.” (17th December 2011)

It’s an interesting angle. We can only assume it’s one Moore has been frantically trying to drum into the public’s mind because he knew the GERS report for 2009/10 was due to show the exact opposite – that Scotland contributes more to the UK’s finances than it gets back, as it has done for years, and that therefore it would be richer as an independent nation even before factoring in any policy changes an independent Holyrood might make (eg saving billions by scrapping Trident and PFI).

We’ll be watching closely to see if Moore keeps punting the same line now that the figures comprehensively disproving his claim are out.

We’ve run this graph before, but in the light of Ed Miliband’s speech to the Scottish Labour conference yesterday it bears repeating. Labour’s newest line – a subtle play on the party’s traditional “too wee, too poor, too stupid” gambit – is to describe the UK as “the redistributive Union“. The twin intended meanings of the phrase are clear: Scotland can only survive if subsidised by the wealthy South-East of England, and a vote for independence is a vote to abandon England’s poor to the cruelty of the Tories.

It’s a powerful message (if not a particularly rational one – if we’re such subsidy junkies, aren’t we a burden on England’s poor?), but it’s also one founded on a gigantic and cynical lie. Firstly because, as this blog has previously discovered, Scottish votes almost never affect which party forms the UK government anyway. And secondly because even when the voters of England do elect a Labour government, the redistribution of wealth still only travels in one direction – from the poor to the rich.

The graph above, taken from independent monitoring group The Poverty Site and created from official UK Government statistics, shows the reality of the last 13 years of Labour government (shaded in grey). Over that period – including the time when Ed Miliband was Chairman of HM Treasury’s Council Of Economic Advisers – the gap between the respective shares of Britain’s wealth owned by the richest 10% of citizens and the poorest 10% significantly INCREASED in size, by around one-eighth.

Of course, when the Tories are in power the rate of increase tends to be slightly higher still, and not only from poor to rich – under the Tory administrations of Thatcher and Major, Scotland subsidised England to the tune of almost £30bn according to the UK Goverment’s own figures. Whichever of the London parties holds power in Westminster, though, the direction the wealth moves in is the same.

Ed Miliband does indeed represent a “redistributive Union”. He wants you to let him and David Cameron continue redistributing the UK’s money from poor people and Scotland to rich people and England. If that’s the future you want, then by all means vote No to independence. Just be clear what it is you’ll be voting for.

It’s tempting to be taken in by the performances of Westminster politicians when they come to Scotland. David Cameron was full of self-effacement and humility in Edinburgh last week, and Michael Moore talks in soft and moderate tones of seeking only to “help” the Scottish Government whenever he speaks to the Scottish media. But if you want to see how our partners in the Union REALLY feel about us, it’s best to watch how they behave when they’re safely back at home.

The contempt for Scotland, and the Scottish Government in particular, just leaps off the screen. The Secretary of State for Scotland is supposed to be Scotland’s man in the government, not the government’s man in Scotland. It’s a post that the Lib Dems said they would abolish altogether in their 2010 manifesto (which is doubtless why in 2012 the job is not only still in existence under the coalition, but occupied by a Lib Dem). And it’s supposed to be a representative figurehead through which the opposition can challenge the UK government’s policies relating to Scotland.

But in the entire half-hour, only one notable question is actually directed by Labour (in the shape of Margaret Curran, who must have been ill) to Moore about his own administration’s conduct. Rather, the rest of the time he’s invited by members of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories to offer his opinion (which invariably concurs with theirs) on the actions of another body, which is not permitted any opportunity to answer back. The proceedings can be accurately summarised thusly:

RANDOM MP, ANY SIDE: “Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP are simply ghastly, and that they smell and all their mums are ugly?”

SECRETARY OF STATE: “Yes. Yes I do. But the Honourable Member should rest assured that this government is doing everything in its power to put the jumped-up little Scotch oiks in their place.”

(Repeat ad infinitum.)

The sheer disrespect in which Scotland is held by the Commons is demonstrated by the constant hubbub of noise over which some questioners fight to be heard, and which the Speaker repeatedly but ineffectually attempts to silence. The volume of contempt rises significantly if any SNP member rises from their seat to speak, only to be all but drowned in jeering, catcalling and hooting from all sides of the House.

When you’re implored over the coming years to remain in our “shared home“, never forget what our position in that home is. We’re not the husband or the wife, nor even a slightly sulky teenager or a new-born and wanted child. We’re the dog. And a dog that keeps making a mess on the carpet, at that. Vote No in 2014  and we’ll have our faces rubbed in it for a generation.

The man who seems to rapidly be becoming the de facto leader of the No campaign gave a fascinating interview on The Sunday Politics at the weekend. Increasingly flustered under persistent questioning from Isobel Fraser, Alastair Darling repeatedly asserted that the Union as it currently stands is a busted flush. But weirdly, time and again he demanded that the Scottish people bet everything on it anyway.

In our specially-commissioned illustration above, the Ace (quite naturally) represents independence. It’s normally the best card, but of course that rather depends what the other one is, and if you’ve ever played blackjack you’ll know that only an idiot would make their decision with only one of the cards showing. But for some unfathomable and inexplicable reason, we’re being asked to throw all our chips onto the table blind.

The former Chancellor was pretty unequivocal about his view of the present constitutional arrangements, and he claimed to speak for everyone else too:

“I don’t think that anybody would argue that the status quo, what we have at the moment, is satisfactory.” (35.04)

“The settlement reached in 1998 is not what we want at the moment, we need to move on from that.” (38.58)

That seems pretty clear, then. But bizarrely, this unsatisfactory state of affairs is what Darling wants the people of Scotland to vote for in the most important decision they’ll take in 300 years. Irrationally, Darling doesn’t want to improve the nature of the Union until AFTER people have decided whether they want to stay in it or not. Eh?

The MP for Edinburgh South West was very firm on the timing. Over and over, as Fraser pointed out the strangeness of the position, he stuck to the story – the Union is rubbish, but rather than fix it with better devolution over the next two and a half years and THEN ask people whether they want to stay in it or not, we should rush to a referendum much sooner (in 2013), vote No to independence, and then trust a Tory government in Westminster to hand Scotland more powers out of the goodness of its heart, now that we’d given up all possibility of leverage in any negotiations.

If this guy is the Union camp’s Great White Hope, we’re ordering bunting.

So was that it? The Unionist media is briefing hard that David Cameron finally laid out the fabled “positive case for the Union” in Edinburgh this week. You can judge the positivity or otherwise for yourself by reading the full text of his speech (which was far more delicately-judged than his previous clodhopping intervention, but still contained the traditional doom-laden warnings of “danger”, terrorist attack, banking collapse and so on) here, but whether the message was positive or not, the one thing it certainly wasn’t was a case for the Union.

Cameron listed a fairly impressive set of reasons why Scotland was great (even managing to cite Keir Hardie through what must have been gritted teeth). He explained why the past was great, because in it the UK had forged great institutions like the NHS (which is already an entirely separate and fully-devolved body in Scotland) and a “generous” welfare state – both of which his government is now dismantling as fast as it humanly (and inhumanly) can. And he hinted at a great future, in which Scotland would enjoy greater devolved powers and responsibilities.

The problem is, the referendum will be a straight choice not between independence and a possible imaginary Union of the future, but between independence and the Union we have now. (Cameron is unequivocal on this, insisting that his hypothetical vision of a more devolved Scotland within the United Kingdom isn’t actually offered to the Scottish people, but left entirely in the trust of Westminster.) And for THAT Union, Cameron made no case at all. Indeed, it could plausibly be argued that he all but explicitly abandoned it.

It’s hard to construct any sort of plausible justification for the Prime Minister’s refusal, when repeatedly challenged by journalists after the speech, to outline the specific devolution proposals which might be negotiated or acknowledge any need for a democratic mandate for them. Cameron has two years in which he could, if he wished, put together an “enhanced devolution” package which could go on the ballot paper. That’s plenty of time, especially given that the Unionist parties have already had a  two-year head start while working on the Calman Commission and Scotland Bill. So why is he so implacably opposed to the idea?

It seems unlikely that the Scottish electorate will fall for such a flimsy pig in a poke. They have, after all, been here before (as the SNP will be sure to constantly remind them), and the vague implied promises of some sort of possible jam tomorrow will carry no more weight for also coming from the hopelessly discredited mouths of Nick Clegg and Michael Moore. (And less still if Labour join in, should they somehow get so far as managing to develop a policy at all.)

David Cameron didn’t make the positive case for the Union on Thursday. He made a case for a positive version of the Union. It’s a version which exists only in abstract conceptual form and which the Prime Minister will neither describe nor commit himself to. (And indeed, one which he may be in no power to honour even if he wanted to, given that by the time the referendum is over a UK general election will loom a matter of months over the horizon.)

It is, in other words, a con trick – a honey trap, built with sugar-sweet words and little else. The Scottish people were badly stung 33 years ago. We suspect this time it’s Cameron who will come unstuck.