Below is a 17-minute section of this afternoon’s John Beattie show on BBC Radio Scotland, featuring me and an amateur blogger with a keen interest in Pedigree Chum discussing the effect of the lower oil price on the Scottish economy.
So that’s genuine progress – next time some frothing Yoon screams “OIL PRICE! BLACK HOLE! SNP LIES! TOO WEE, TOO POOR!” at you, you can direct them here for categorical agreement from the Yes and No sides alike that actually the falling oil price makes an independent Scotland MORE economically viable, not less.
Unfortunately you’ll have to put up with a condescending, patronising arse sniggering randomly throughout, but it’s a relatively small price to pay.
Normally when the BBC’s Andrew Neil asks a politician to put a figure on one of their policy proposals the interviewee should be wary, because a trap is about to be sprung.
Governments, of all political stripes and nations, are often accused of being control freaks bent on constructing and enforcing a “nanny state”, where citizens’ freedoms are arbitrarily curtailed under a pretence of it all being for their own good.
The phrase most repeated by angry Unionists in the 16-and-a-bit months since the independence referendum is surely “once in a generation”. While the SNP quietly gets on with the business of government, having not mentioned a second referendum in its 2015 manifesto and not being expected to do so in this year’s either, the parties of the UK can’t seem to shut up about it.
(This is happening despite Ruth Davidson having said just nine months ago that her party wouldn’t block a second indyref, while Ed Miliband said that Labour would. However, Davidson’s organ-grinder, David Cameron, joined Labour in ruling it out just a few months later, which may explain Davidson performing a sudden U-turn akin to her famous one over more devolution.)
And when you boil it down to the brass tacks, what that means is that the parties of the Union want to hold the Scottish people prisoner.
The groupthink of the Unionist commentariat is unfailingly a sight to behold. Barely a dozen weeks ago we drew attention to a seasonal crop of articles professing that the end of the SNP’s eight-year “honeymoon” was in sight, and that surely voters would surely tire at any moment of their supposed poor record in government.
But after the damage anticipated by the press from the Forth Bridge affair and another load of ham-fisted Labour attacks failed to materialise (defused in part by a set of excellent and significantly improved NHS waiting-time stats that must have had the BBC’s Eleanor Bradford weeping inconsolably into her clipboard), the pundit hive-mind has moved swiftly on to a new outlook: morose resignation.
The Labour Party has today published Margaret Beckett’s report into why it lost the 2015 general election. We were rather struck by this line:
Let’s just go over that one again to be sure: Labour believed that an SNP victory in Scotland would make it “impossible” for the Tories to form the government.
Which is weird, because that’s not quite what we remember them saying.
During the independence referendum campaign, we catalogued numerous breaches of the law for which the “Better Together” campaign was let off with a slap on the wrist, from data protection to running unlicensed lotteries. Today several papers report that the official No campaign has been fined £2000 by the Electoral Commission for failing to document £57,000 of its expenditure during the campaign.
Alert readers will no doubt recall the explosion of glee from Unionists in the press and on social media last October when this site was fined £750 for being late with some of its own documentation, and we assumed that much the same thing had happened with BT, but on closer examination the story appears to be rather different.
Rather than simply missing the deadline for providing receipts or invoices for specific items of spending, “Better Together” appears, going by the report in the Herald, to not have accounted for the money at all.
Thanks to the Scottish Daily Mail, we’ve just spotted a piece by the Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin for City AM a few days ago. We had an inordinate amount of trouble getting the full article to display past the site’s incredibly over-zealous advert enforcer, so we’ve preserved it for posterity here.
There’s a gem in every paragraph. You’re going to like this one.
One of the most frustrating things about the independence campaign was when people tried to put policies before principles. The point of Scotland being independent, as we pointed out in the Wee Blue Book, isn’t so that it can install any particular political party in government or pursue any particular political direction. It’s simply for Scotland to be able to choose those for itself, not have them imposed on it against its will by the people of another country.
To that end, we’ve often published poll findings that show Scots holding views that are at odds with our own (eg on the death penalty or workfare), because it’s always worth remembering that you have to persuade the electorate you have, not shout angrily at it in the hope it’ll become the electorate you WISH existed.
If you insist that independence must mean Policy X, you run the risk of needlessly and wrongly alienating people who support independence but might not back Policy X. It’s something that’s always worth keeping in mind.
Sven on How Far To Go, How Far: “You’d know, I’m sure, I wish you well “James Cheyne”; were every independence minded Scot as single minded, determined and…” Dec 13, 14:56
Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: “Nae bother, James. The longer you stay around here the better as far as I’m concerned. And thanks for the…” Dec 13, 14:55
Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: ““But that flame still burns.” I’ll tell you what ‘burns’… YOUR SHITTY RHETORIC! BOOM!!! Northcode drops the “Ad Hominem”, arm…” Dec 13, 14:46
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “robertkknight, Better together, as the prime ministers statement once said. Why not have the upper ruling class grouped with the…” Dec 13, 14:36
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “North code. Thank for those kind words, It would appear that I could be here for as long as the…” Dec 13, 14:23
robertkknight on How Far To Go, How Far: “I don’t think that there are any depths left to which the NuSNP Govt. won’t stoop. For years they’ve been…” Dec 13, 13:55
Stu on How Far To Go, How Far: “Lomcal, I don’t think there is. Like I said, if a judge was hypothetically going to go for a specific…” Dec 13, 13:17
Rob on How Far To Go, How Far: “I normally don’t normally give much credence to conspiracy theories, basic incompetence usually explains most of the screw up. However…” Dec 13, 13:16
Jill on How Far To Go, How Far: “The most generous reading of this debacle is that the judge is incompetent. I’m inclined to be less generous. Trans…” Dec 13, 13:09
Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: “I for one will be sorry to see you leave this place, James. Your stoical perseverance in acquiring and presenting…” Dec 13, 12:58
Mark Beggan on How Far To Go, How Far: “Is that carpet burns on Swinney’s face?” Dec 13, 12:50
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “Thoughts for today, I will retire and make way for others after the two year long wait from DWP and…” Dec 13, 12:36
Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: ““…I write, as always, to educate the readers on the world’s most-read Indy website.” We uneducated plebians here on “the…” Dec 13, 12:22
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “The gender issue of how to use women and children spaces as a trademark fetish is dangerous. I suppose if…” Dec 13, 12:06
Bilbo on The ginger stepchild: “Who’s the loser? Me with the cut and paste jobs at every election or you and your multiple accounts stalking…” Dec 13, 11:35
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “Thought of today, For nearly a year now I have been stating I will retire from the efforts of independence…” Dec 13, 11:17
David Henry on How Far To Go, How Far: “It’s clear that political interference has been involved and Judge Kemp must take responsibility for the made up quotes and…” Dec 13, 11:16
Alf Baird on How Far To Go, How Far: “” that Scotland still contains some decent, rational, balanced individuals, capable of reason and the logical development of arguments.” That…” Dec 13, 11:08
agentx on How Far To Go, How Far: ““he brother-in-law of Scotland’s former first minister Humza Yousaf has been cleared of extortion and drugs charges. Ramsay El-Nakla, 37,…” Dec 13, 11:03
Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: “We need to organise popular rituals of support like when we clapped for the SNHS during the long Covid years…” Dec 13, 10:54
Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: “Good post, Lorncal. Obviously, you mostly get it. But you perhaps overlook the involvement of our New Scots in pursuing…” Dec 13, 10:45
Dan on How Far To Go, How Far: “So, are you saying all these people are unbalanced and have an unhealthy obsession with matters sexual, when everything else…” Dec 13, 10:41
Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: “Fit a surprise, it’s the ad hominem. I hope you have a wonderful weekend, Northy, and that maybe even one…” Dec 13, 10:34
Lorncal on How Far To Go, How Far: “You don’t get it, do you? This stuff underpins everything else that is happening in Scotland. It has done us…” Dec 13, 10:22
Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: ““Or, for those of you who are ruffians and prefer a translation that leans more towards the tongue of the…” Dec 13, 10:18
Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: ““us” “fastcand” Please send my 30 quid via Rev Stu.” Dec 13, 10:18