We’ve noted on numerous occasions previously that one of this site’s prime functions is merely to remember things – to serve as a repository of fact which can be referred to when politicians or the media try to mislead people about what happened in the past. It was a thought we were struck by again on reading The Times this morning.
Because as we beheld Kenny Farquharson’s account of the SNP’s manifesto launch, and how its emphasis on the word “RE-ELECT” was unfamiliar and “very different” to their last Holyrood manifesto launch, we were sure that wasn’t how we recalled it.
This site has never told readers how to vote in Scottish elections and never will, partly because its editor has no vote there and doesn’t have to live with the consequences whoever wins. (Something that ISN’T true about independence, in which case Wings would relocate to Scotland, which is why we freely express a firm view on that.)
It’s in that context that we make the following observations about next month’s vote.
The Sunday Herald, which enjoyed a major sales boost from being the first Scottish newspaper to officially back independence but has since seen its circulation increase partly eroded, has this morning chosen to throw a stick of dynamite onto the fire.
The paper’s front page today teases a double-page spread inside with the headline “SPECIAL REPORT: HOW INDEPENDENCE SUPPORTERS SHOULD USE THEIR SECOND VOTE”. And then things get a little strange.
While we’re on the subject of Ruth “line in the sand” Davidson of the Ruth Davidson No Surrender To The SNP Anti-Referendum Party making U-turns, we thought we might remind you of another one, this time from rather more recent history than 2011.
Just nine months ago, apparently Ms Davidson’s view was that “it would be wrong for the Tories to stand in the way” of another referendum “if the SNP gets a democratic mandate from the public”.
Sounds like a firm, resolute commitment to democracy and the incontrovertible right of the people of Scotland to determine their own destiny. Stirring stuff. We approve.
Last weekend’s edition of the Sunday Times gave an article to a Green activist and party worker – not billed as such, even though until last month he was on the party’s regional candidate list for Lothian – to predict that the Greens would get 10 seats at next month’s election.
Much campaigning by the various fringe parties for the Holyrood contest has been based on “seat predictors” like the one deployed to produce the figures in the piece, purporting to show that a tactical-voting strategy on the list can deliver a large gain in numbers of pro-independence MSPs compared to using both votes for the SNP.
We’ve examined that argument in considerable depth already, both theoretical and practical. But its also worth noting that so-called “seat predictors” are a rather shaky basis for making such bold forecasts.
We’ve made some progress. It’s just three days since we outlined a question that all the leaders of the Unionist parties should be asked, and we have our first answer. An alert reader emailed it to Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and to his credit he gave a quick, straight and unequivocal response. This is it:
“I don’t like addressing too many hypothetical situations but in this case let me be clear. If we voted to leave the EU then I would still vote to remain in the UK. I am very pro European and will campaign to remain in the EU. In the disappointing situation of Brexit I would not seek to heap more division on that divisive situation.”
Now it’s Kezia Dugdale of Scottish Labour and Ruth Davidson of the Ruth Davidson No Surrender To The SNP Anti-Referendum Party’s turn. We’re sure that if any of their constituents were to drop them a line, they’d be equally forthcoming.
We were having a quiet night in, readers. (Living in a cul-de-sac, it’s quite peaceful here in the evenings, unless we’re hosting a soirée.) We’d just made ourselves a late snack of a tasty baguette – preceded by a small apéritif, and a few canapés serving as hors d’oeuvre – as the au pair is on holiday in Paris this week with the chauffeur, taking in some haute couture.
As we relaxed on the chaise-longue, pondering an indulgent dessert of a chocolate eclair or some crème brûlée, we glanced at Twitter, in the hope of being amused by a few bon mots in the milieu of the internet. Sadly, the reality was a cliché.
Dismayingly, this magnificent piece of virtuoso television interviewing from last night’s Scotland Tonight doesn’t appear to have been recorded in full splendid isolation for posterity anywhere, so it would be a grave failure of duty on our part not to preserve it for those viewers unfortunate enough to have been otherwise engaged.
James on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Tried to depose German Geordie and replace him with the rightful heir to the throne. There, fixed that for ye.…” Oct 3, 00:02
willie on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Great support for this absolutely essential court action. It is an outrage that £700k can be solicited to be ring…” Oct 2, 22:58
Frank Gillougley on In The Eyes Of The Law: “50 in with pleasure and appreciation.” Oct 2, 21:11
Alf Baird on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Yes Hatey, dealing effectively with the colonial ‘condition’ requires difficult treatment; liberation is the only remedy and takes effect through…” Oct 2, 20:38
Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Sell some of your tea towels and you could donate more.” Oct 2, 20:07
Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “How come you’re immune to the pathology then, Alf? The vaccinations aren’t available on the SNHS. Did you pay to…” Oct 2, 19:50
Alf Baird on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““Those of us with an open, questioning and independent mind” That’s perhaps a rather theoretical assumption, Spartan, especially for a…” Oct 2, 18:50
Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “BS, sam. 1715 and 1745 were dynastic and sectarian uprisings. Attempts to depose the Protestant Hanoverian royal line and replace…” Oct 2, 18:50
sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Not so sure about this claim, Alf. There were many armed uprisings in colonial Ireland against English rule. The 1715…” Oct 2, 17:21
Dave on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Wow, the fund is filling up fast, excellent news! I, for one, cannot wait to see the miscreants sweating on…” Oct 2, 17:18
agentx on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Why it is considered secure • Direct Lawyer Payouts: Funds do not go to the individual starting the page. Money…” Oct 2, 17:16
Spartan 117 on In The Eyes Of The Law: “@Alf – No, those of us who learn read the theory then use it to put it into practice and…” Oct 2, 16:54
James on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Keep ’em coming, ‘Confused’. Larry, curly and Moe bite every time. Speaking of stooges I wonder when the fragrant ‘Adrian’…” Oct 2, 16:53
Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Who had Freire on their Bingo card?” Oct 2, 16:39
Spartan 117 on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I’m assuming “sparky” refers to “Spartan”, if I can read correctly through your blurry alcohol-fuelled stupor, 8 Ace. “tell (sic…” Oct 2, 16:30
Alf Baird on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““uses the quotes of others” This is nothing new for academics who logically base their research first on the available…” Oct 2, 16:17
Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “You are right Confused! Your unhinged idiocy is truly legendary., even here. Very conversation-worthy, personally I find it incredible. Always…” Oct 2, 16:04
sarah on In The Eyes Of The Law: “@ douglas – you can reduce the tip, even to zero.” Oct 2, 16:01
douglas on In The Eyes Of The Law: “happy to contribute, not happy with crowdjustice. Imposing an extra 20% and calling it a tip is taking the p.…” Oct 2, 15:44
lothianlad on The Turning Point: “The SNP leadership have actively working FOR the british state. Sturgeon is the greatest traitor to Scotland in the modern…” Oct 2, 15:22
lothianlad on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Well done Stu! They are rattled! Only those with integrity should be allowed power.” Oct 2, 15:20
Confused on In The Eyes Of The Law: “The only thing worse than being talked about, is NOT being talked about … I seem to have the WORST…” Oct 2, 15:13
Spartan 117 on In The Eyes Of The Law: “James likes to label anyone he disagrees with as “Unionist” or “Yoon”. A bit like Confused’s rantings when its necked…” Oct 2, 14:44
Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Cesaire wrote about “goitrous academics”. I don’t think he was being complimentary, although I do recommend that anybody interested should…” Oct 2, 13:57
Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I’m not going anywhere, Fatty. Enjoy.” Oct 2, 13:34
James on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Unionist shill; **** off. There’s a good chap.” Oct 2, 13:03
Connor on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Why no paypal option ? Sorry I do not feel safe having to give my card details to all, paypal…” Oct 2, 11:39
Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I respect anyone who gets up for work every morning, goes to work, pays their own way, pays their taxes…” Oct 2, 11:28