We stumbled across this quite by accident yesterday. We think you’ll enjoy it.
The clip is from last year, and was aired on Canadian national news channel Sun News. Douglas Murray is a British writer who claims to be half-Scottish on account of unspecified links to Unionist breeding ground the Isle of Lewis, popular haunt of No-camp luminaries like Alistair Darling, virulent Labour anti-devolutionist Brian Wilson and controversial “Better Together” donor Ian Taylor.
Murray studied at Eton and Oxford and writes for august UK journals like the Spectator and Guardian, as well as appearing on numerous BBC political shows. For some reason, the Canadians consider him an expert on Scottish politics, qualified to inform and enlighten their viewers. See what you think.
(Our emphases.) That’s pretty clear, then – the No campaign will not accept money from “foreign donors”, but will take “up to £500” from people resident in the UK.
The calmer heads found in the Scottish independence movement – and in our better moments we like to consider ours among them – can often be heard cautioning against over-deploying allegations of bias, and citing Hanlon’s Razor in doing so.
(And to save you clicking on the link, that’s the one which runs “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.)
It is, of course, possible and frequently the case for BOTH to be present – a glance at any Scotsman column by Michael Kelly or Brian Wilson will verify that – but this morning we’re going to focus on the latter side of the equation.
We’re not going to link to the Brian Wilson article which the Guardian unaccountably lowered itself to publishing yesterday. It’s embarrassing to see a still-widely-respected newspaper debasing its pages with the sort of swivel-eyed ranting you’d normally expect from a drunk shouting at a skip at 7am, which we can only assume the paper paid money for after LabourHame rejected it as being just too bitter and deranged.
One ugly little piece of innuendo is worth picking up on, though. With what’s the closest thing to subtlety in the piece, Wilson grudgingly concedes the SNP’s mandate to hold an independence referendum:
“The difference is that Scotland now has to answer a question which only a minority want to ask: ‘Should Scotland become an independent country?’ This is because, two years ago, 21% of Scots voted nationalist in the Holyrood elections, giving them an overall majority.”
Even in that tiny snippet there are several nasty little lies (nobody voted “nationalist”, for example – they voted for the SNP, which stands for Scottish National Party rather than Nationalist, and many did so despite opposing independence, just as tens of thousands of “nationalists” voted for other parties). But we’ll focus on the “21%” thing.
We can’t even be bothered linking to Brian Wilson‘s latest load of “will-this-do?” money for old rope in The Scotsman. We also can’t be bothered refuting any of its infantile, defamatory lies, which would all embarrass any grown-up newspaper that retained a shred of pride in its content. And we’re not going to occupy any more of our valuable time demolishing the central argument, when Brian has so helpfully done it for us himself right in the middle of his own article.
HEADLINE “Shetland has the right to go it alone”
COPY “There is little evidence that Shetland particularly wants to be independent”
There is? That’s that all sorted out, then. We’ve got a long queue of drivelling eejits to deal with today, Brian – have a lollipop and move along, there’s a good wee lad.
This’ll probably come off sounding sarcastic and snide, but it honestly isn’t meant that way. In a world where it’s becoming harder and harder to get paid for journalism, we’re genuinely full of admiration and no small amount of jealousy that weel-kent pundit Gerry Hassan yesterday managed to extract yet more money from the Scotsman by writing the same article for roughly the 50th time* this year.
The piece, in which – shock of shocks! – Gerry calls for a more mature, serious and respectful kind of debate about independence, comes at the end of a year in which the publications who keep commissioning him to write that same piece have determinedly undermined any possibility of that more mature, serious and respectful debate about independence ever happening, by engaging in a concerted campaign of smear, innuendo and malicious spin directed almost entirely against one side.
We’re over the worst of the flu now, readers. You can blow out those prayer candles. Sadly, though, we’re still not quite at 100% fighting fitness, so it might be a wee bit too dangerous to wade recklessly into the pool of shrieking, panicked insanity that poor Brian Wilson is thrashing around in at the Scotsman today.
If you perhaps weren’t yet certain of the power of Nicola Sturgeon’s tremendous and widely-lauded keynote speech at Strathclyde University on Monday, Wilson’s furiously incoherent and plainly terrified response is the proof of the pudding. The No camp is losing the argument, and they don’t know what to do about it.
We’re not about to help them out with strategy tips as to the right way to make their case, but out of basic human decency we’ll give them one clue: this isn’t it.
There’s a very good piece in the Scottish Sun today by Andrew Nicoll – entitled “Why promise more devolution when it will never happen?” – on the consequences of a “No” vote in the 2014 referendum. It’s well worth reading in full, but if you’re in a rush we’ll just quote the last line of it to give you the flavour:
“Independence has been a gun at Westminster’s head for decades. What do you think will happen when they find out there are no bullets in it?”
We are, as ever, pleased to see the mainstream Scottish media catching up with the stuff we’ve been saying for months, although the reality is in fact even worse than Nicoll suggests. Nonetheless, it’s good to see the analysis disseminated in Scotland’s biggest-selling paper, and by a proper senior staff journalist rather than the cop-out option of an opinion columnist. The Scottish Sun has almost ten times the circulation of the Scotsman, the country’s supposed “quality” broadsheet, and it’s worth remembering that pieces like this will therefore reach far more people than the likes of Michael Kelly, Brian Wilson or Magnus Gardham could ever dream of. Slowly but surely, the independence campaign is winning the argument, and the opposition’s panicked response tells the story. Stay out of the mud, folks.
A personal comment/disclaimer first. Brian Wilson is probably the first specifically Scottish politician I remember (well, apart from one I knew personally and socially, but that’s a story for another day). He was a prominent Labour figure in the 1980s, and as a young teenager with a just-awakening interest in left-wing politics it’s fair to say he was one of the main things that put me off Labour. Even at the age of 14 I got the impression of a nasty, snide, arrogant and pious career politico who’d say anything he thought might score a point over his opponent whether he believed it or not.
So in the interests of fairness and transparency we’re declaring a prejudice in advance. Brian Wilson is a horrible little man, up to his ear hair in the corrupt crony culture of Glasgow Labour, and whenever we hear him speak on any subject we’re reflexively and overwhelmingly inclined to believe the opposite of whatever he’s saying.
Nevertheless, we can’t help seeing a particular significance in the fact that he of all people was chosen to put Labour’s case on last night’s Newsnight Scotland.
There's been so much happening lately that we can barely keep track of it, let alone attend to such trivial matters as real life as well, so let's see if we can get up to speed on the most interesting stuff quickly. It seems like everyone's talking about Scandinavia at the moment, as the SNP revealed that they're keen to see a future Scotland align itself in a slightly more Nordic way than a European one.
The Guardian, Caledonian Mercury and Scotsman have run a fascinating variety of perspectives on the issue lately, and this blog is certainly very comfortable with the idea that an independent Scotland might choose to run its society along such lines rather than follow the neo-liberal path that's done such a good job for Europe lately.
Hamish McDonnell's article in the CalMerc perceptively points out the conflict between the high-tax, high-quality lifestyle of the Scandinavian nations and the low-tax Ireland-style model the SNP have previously advocated, but Donald Adamson writing in Bella Caledonia comes in with a timely piece, ostensibly focusing on some election-result analysis but which ends by suggesting the SNP might stand to gain significantly by making exactly such a move towards the more social-democratic positions occupied by Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
Not a great deal going on in the papers today. The Herald and Scotsman both cover a mildly interesting story about prospective Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont acknowledging – unusually for the party – that the Scottish people might vote Yes in the referendum, and talking of Labour's role in a post-independence Scotland.
Meanwhile, back on the party's more traditional ultra-Unionist wing, veteran Nat-basher Brian Wilson pontificates at length in the Scotsman on another variant of the "too wee, too poor, too stupid" line, this time focusing on issues relating to Scottish Power and whether its renewable energy would find an export market post-independence. The piece appears to concentrate mostly on the cost of transmitting electricity from the furthest extremes of the country – Orkney and Shetland – and makes no mention of that which would be generated on or closer to the mainland. It also plays heavily on the idea that England might prefer to import energy from Russia than Scotland, which seems a bit of a stretch.
The same publication offers some balance in the form of a rather rambling diatribe from SNP MSP Joan McAlpine, which is constructed mostly from suggestion and innuendo but does contain a small nugget or two for analysts to chew over with regard to the Scotland Bill, not least the writer's assertion – heavily qualified with "personal opinion" disclaimers – that given a choice between accepting the entire Scotland Bill as it stands or rejecting it outright at Holyrood, she'd opt for the latter.
