Percentage of A&E patients in Scotland in 2017 to date seen within four hours (target 95%), described by Labour MSP Colin Smyth as a “deeply troubling” figure: 94%
Percentage of the vote on which Mr Smyth was elected as an MSP in 2016: 8.9%
There’s so little happening in Scottish politics news today that we had to read David Torrance’s column in the Herald, and we must say we ended up pretty confused.
Not by the fact that it was a free half-page advert for a new Unionist “thinktank” set up by an angry unsuccessful dogfood salesman readers may be familiar with – there were no surprises to be found there from either Torrance or the Herald – but by the thinktank itself, which doesn’t seem to know its Arsenal from its Devil’s Elbow.
Yesterday we noted the remarkable lack of coverage in the Scottish press about the workforce at BAE Systems in Govan being stabbed in the back yet again over UK government warship orders, with five Type 31 frigates promised to the yard (to replace five more expensive Type 26s) now going to Merseyside instead.
We claimed that newspapers including the Record had completely ignored the story in their print editions (and in most cases online as well), but an alert reader pointed out that it fact the Record HAD featured it, and we’re happy to correct our error.
Here it is, on page 14:
Did you spot it?
With the matter of the UK government’s orders for warships to be built on the Clyde having been such a vexed and contentious one over the last few years, you’d think that any significant developments in the story would be big news in Scotland.
So yesterday, when it was revealed that BAE systems definitely wouldn’t be building the five cheaper Type 31 frigates – which had replaced the originally-promised Type 26s – in Scotland, in a move which the shipbuilding unions described as a “betrayal”, we sat back and waited for the Scottish media’s outraged blanket coverage.
We didn’t really, of course. We’re not idiots.
Quite a few remarkable things were said on last night’s STV debate between the two prospective leaders of the Labour Party branch office in Scotland. This one, though, was especially striking.
That’s Anas Sarwar denying three times that he was a part of the “Better Together” campaign with the Tories. A startled Colin Mackay claims to have seen photographs of Sarwar campaigning with BT, at which point Sarwar insists no, he merely appeared on TV debates which happened to also have Tory guests.
It seemed like it’d be an easy thing to check.
Readers will doubtless be startled to hear that today’s Scottish newspapers have taken a somewhat misleading approach to the facts on one of the day’s big stories.
Several of them report the findings of a commission looking into the idea of a Citizen’s (or Universal) Basic Income, a scheme which pays every adult in the country a fixed sum every year regardless of their own income, almost completely replacing the current benefits system.
(We’ll use Universal/UBI, to avoid confusion with the greedy-businessman trade body.)
The idea is that as well as reducing poverty, the administrative costs of social security are massively reduced, as is the problem of vulnerable people not taking up benefits because of the stigma often attached to them by the press.
The downside is that it’s generally more expensive. But have the Scottish press accurately reported the scale of that cost, or have they massively exaggerated it for shock value and to serve a right-wing agenda? Read on for a surprise!
Investigative site The Ferret this afternoon published a report into the Scottish Futures Trust, the SNP’s replacement for Labour’s cripplingly costly PFI projects.
The report was undertaken by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert, a pair of economists well regarded in nationalist circles, and makes some interesting if vague comments about downsides that MIGHT, in theory, exist in the SFT now or in the future.
The headline claims are all full of highly-qualified language (“may not deliver value for money”; “profits may be unduly high”; “could restrict growth”; “potentially has adverse implications”; “impossible to tell whether“), and it’s a long way down the page until you get to anything approaching a hard fact, or indeed the revelation that the report seems to have been paid for by Scottish Labour.
And that’s when things get a little weird.
We long ago gave up expecting any sort of principled consistency from the Scottish Tories. Whether it was Ruth “line in the sand, no more powers” Davidson magically morphing into a champion of extended devolution, or suddenly reversing her position on free prescriptions, the party is now almost as fluid on policy as Scottish Labour.
The underlings, of course, dutifully follow their leader’s example. Readers familiar with Adam Tomkins’ remarkably rapid journey from fiery pro-independence republican to an ultra-Unionist ultra-Conservative monarchist will, we suspect, barely have batted an eyelid this morning as he unblinkingly performed a full 180-degree turn on the concept of universal basic income.
Even though as recently as this January he was full of admiration for it:
And he’s not alone.
The Guardian today on Ruth Davidson’s legendary commitment to the day job:
And an action shot of those packed-in crowds two weeks ago:
We hope nobody was injured in the crush.
A story on the BBC website last night:
The same story this morning:
The first version is entirely accurate. Readers can decide for themselves why someone at the BBC felt it needed to be changed from neutral terms to pejorative ones.
The Conservative Home website ran this yesterday.
Alert readers, of course, will be able to explain at least one Scottish teaching vacancy.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
