A realistic, informed and expert assessment of an independent Scotland’s relationship with Europe was accidentally reported by the BBC this morning. It’s chilly here today so we’re going to have to warm up our transcribing fingers for those who can’t access streams, but in the meantime the rest of you can listen to the audio.
This guy’s on your team. Congratulations on that.
(We’re particularly impressed by the attack on Nicola Sturgeon, just days after a poll found her to be the most popular politician in Scotland, and probably Britain. Genius.)
At the last Scottish Parliament election, UKIP secured 0.52% of the vote, a little over half the share achieved by the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party. We’re not sure why the press doesn’t give their leader, whoever it is, more front covers.
This is a letter sent to the Scotsman this week, as yet unpublished by the newspaper, in response to this. It is reproduced here with the author’s permission.
SIR – I have read David Maddox’s article on Scotland and Catalonia (19th February 2013). As a Catalan that has lived and worked in Scotland for many years and also as a former Representative of the Government of Catalonia to the UK, I was surprised by the contents of the article.
The relations between Scotland and Catalonia have traditionally been excellent and since devolution they have become even better. How would you otherwise explain the lessons learnt from the Catalan political system when designing the devolution settlement for Scotland?; or the Scottish and Catalan governments Protocol of Cooperation signed in 2002?; or the symbolism associated with the fact that the Scottish Parliament was built by the Catalan architect Enric Miralles?; or even the extremely successful visit of the First Minister Salmond to Catalonia just a few years ago? These are powerful statements of friendship between two countries.
Catalans, and the rest of the world, know that Scotland is at the most important crossroads of the last 300 years. Now it is time for Scots to decide the future of its nation. We wish Scotland and its people well and we are very pleased to see that Scotland’s future is in the best possible hands.
Xavier Solano i Bello
Tiltman Place
London
The most interestingly consistent trend of recent opinion polls has been a significant movement away from the No vote to the Don’t Know camp. Almost every one conducted in the last few months has shown the proportion of the population intending to vote against independence dropping below 50%, but the Yes campaign has only picked up a minority, with the rest now firmly undecided.
The significance of this shift shouldn’t be underestimated. Once someone’s opinion starts to change, more often than not it tends to keep moving in the same direction, unless there’s a fundamental alteration in the reasons that caused it to start. And with the anti-independence side showing no signs of abandoning their campaign of relentless negativity, that seems unlikely.
However, it also shouldn’t be OVER-estimated. A crucial section of the populace has signified its willingness to be persuaded, but if it’s to turn the headline figures around YesScotland still has to finish the job. In order to understand how that might be achieved, we need to examine the fundamental tenets of Unionism.
For those of you not on Twitter. Click for full-fat glory.
(From here, via alert reader Paul Martin.)
We’ve been (rather childishly, we admit) suggesting that “deputy” Anas Sarwar was Scottish Labour’s real leader for longer than we care to remember now. It was nice of the Daily Record to finally confirm it for us today, though.
It’s always a matter of concern when supposedly impartial newspapers put out stories which appear more openly partisan than a party press release, and doubly so when the author is a staff news reporter rather than an opinion columnist. (As the latter are under no obligation to exercise impartiality, or indeed even to feign it.)
So it’s actually rather rare to see a smear piece as blatant as the one penned by David Maddox for the Scotsman today. Advertised on Twitter with the words “Does the Declaration of Arbroath have any significance beyond Scotland for the SNP? The evidence suggests not”, there are so many odd things about the story we’re going to have to make a list.
We’re tired of listening to the Unionist parties’ incessant “We cannae dae it!” carping about how an independent Scotland couldn’t afford, well, pretty much anything, which is why we won’t be wasting our time and yours by writing about Anas Sarwar’s empty, cynical platitude of a speech in Glasgow today. We’ve had an idea.
A few days ago we read a rather curious piece on STV News about someone who’d placed a large bet with William Hill on Scotland achieving independence “by 2020”. Obviously, the timing is pretty weird – if, God forbid, there should be a No vote in 2014, it seems astronomically unlikely that there would be another referendum within six years. But the other strange thing was the odds the mystery punter got.
I’m not a feminist. I’m barely feminine come to that: a pushing-40 tomboy. My initial reaction to comments about gender balance is a cringe. So what if there are four men and no women on a panel? What do women bring to a debate that a man can’t? If I’m really honest, a man will often persuade me to a cause long before a woman – they can exude an air of authority most women would feel embarrassed to display.
It’s only very recently, partly thanks to Women for Independence, I’ve realised it’s an issue that does matter. On this site – below the line – the question of gender balance has been dismissed as hysterical feminism. On Twitter, a debate last week had the lack of women in politics dismissed with “Well, they exclude themselves, don’t they?”
The irony for me, as a woman, is how those kind of comments mirror the independence debate itself. An “I’m not a feminist but…” article echoes the now common, “I’m not a nationalist but…” refrain. The cringe when women speak up about gender imbalance is similar to the Scottish cringe: a lack of confidence in who you are; in standing up for yourself or others in your position; in insisting you on your right to be heard over those exuding more authority.
The “Well they exclude themselves don’t they? If women want to be involved what’s stopping them?” line carries within it the same lack of insight into power structures and barriers as, “What are those Jocks whinging about now? They’re represented at Westminster, aren’t they?”
The issue, as far as I’m concerned – and other women may disagree, we don’t all think the same – isn’t one about straight gender balance. Simply replacing male politicians and panellists with women who’ve made it within the same system misses the point. The issue is with politics itself, and the style of UK political and media debate.
From last year, but no less pertinent for it:
“Labour campaigned in Scotland on the basis of being the only party that will stand up to savage Tory cuts in local councils. Whilst the Tories’ vote declined significantly, their influence in Scotland has increased massively due to Labour’s willingness to enter into coalitions with them to keep the SNP out. It goes without saying that this is a complete betrayal of those who thought a Labour vote was an anti-Tory vote.”
(Ben Wray for International Socialist Group.)
Karine Polwart is a Scottish folk singer and Green Party supporter. Earlier today we highlighted a curious editorial choice by Scotland On Sunday, which framed a column she’d written on independence as an attack on the SNP, despite Ms Polwart not mentioning the SNP anywhere in the text, either directly or indirectly.
Below is the text of a post on her Facebook page this morning, after SoS deputy editor Kenny Farquharson tried unsuccessfully to defend the use of the anti-SNP headline:
“Full text of my wee rant in favour of Yes Scotland in today’s Scotland on Sunday. For clarity, the title is not mine. If I’d wanted to frame my piece as an explicit go at the SNP then I would’ve done so.
YES Scotland is not a covert SNP operation. I believe the independents, Greens, socialists, and growing number of pro-Indy Labour and Liberal activists bless if there are any of the latter left) must shape that agenda too. Anyway, here’s to more voices being heard, and more proper heartfelt and visionary exchange between us about what’s WRONG, and why, and what might fix it (whether you think Independence is a possible answer or not).”
(Two small typos fixed for readability, otherwise unchanged. Original here.)
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
