“…a constitutional convention should consider how to further embed equality and human rights within the constitution and the extent to which the people of Scotland should have constitutional rights in relation to issues such as welfare, pensions, health care and education.”
“…and we need to stop human rights legislation interfering with our ability to fight crime and control immigration. That’s why, as our last manifesto promised, the next Conservative government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and it’s why we should also consider very carefully our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights and the Convention it enforces.”
I can’t decide for you, but I know which one seems more appealing to me.
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.
Alert contributor Scott Minto came across a weird little story in The Sun this week. We had a look into it and found the “Loyalist” nutcases responsible, whose Facebook page helpfully also provided us with a much more beautiful and uplifting sight.
Flying proudly over Glasgow City Chambers, just as it should. Not long now.
Over the last 30 days, Wings Over Scotland’s readership has soared to almost 42,000 unique users. Although in February our number of unique visitors eclipsed daily sales of the Scotsman for the first time (and has grown 25% since then), soon we’ll have no idea how we’re doing comparatively, because the once-proud newspaper has now joined the Herald in ducking out of monthly sales reporting. The Guardian reports:
“All four titles were pulled out of monthly reporting against the background of plunging print sales. In The Scotsman’s case, its sale in January was recorded as 32,435, only 21,806 of which were sold at the full cover price. That represented a year-on-year drop of 17.5%. Scotland of Sunday’s circulation fall, to a January average of 38,493, was worse. That was 24% fewer than in January 2012.”
Veteran readers of this site will know how hard it is to nail Scottish Labour down on a policy for just about anything. So when we suggested earlier today that the party DID have a (sort of) firm policy on something – namely calling on the Scottish Government to bring forward legislation to stop people being evicted over bedroom-tax arrears – we probably shouldn’t have been surprised to be contacted within minutes by a Scottish Labour press officer angrily insisting that it didn’t.
For the seasoned political analyst (and also for idiots like us), it can be hard to offer a rational explanation for why any thinking human being would ever believe a word the Labour Party says about anything any more.
It came to power 16 years ago promising to introduce electoral reform, then ditched it. (But still hilariously claims to be committed to the principle despite 100 years of failing to deliver it.) It also pledged not to introduce university tuition fees, then introduced them. It campaigned for re-election on a promise not to increase them, then increased them. It – well, we could go on all day, just about tuition fees alone.
But let’s cut to the chase and move up to the present day.
“Millions of Scots will lose out on an RBS share bonanza worth up to £800 if they choose independence, Business Secretary Vince Cable has warned.
The Treasury is considering giving every taxpayer in the UK shares in RBS as part of a give-away ahead of the next general election. Coalition sources calculate the windfall could be worth £400 to £800 per person.
Coalition Cabinet minister Mr Cable said his Liberal Democrat party backed the payout to ensure taxpayers benefit from 2008’s billion-pound bailout of the Edinburgh institution, although he cautioned the Coalition not to “rush” the process.
Asked if Scots would get a chance to benefit in an independent Scotland, he said: “No. It is at the moment vested in the British Government.”
Even leaving aside the astonishingly crude bribery/blackmail aspect, we’re still a bit confused. Unionists constantly tell us that RBS is “Scottish”, and that therefore an independent Scotland should take on all of its debt. But apparently the people of the rUK will still own the whole bank, so they’ll get all the shares and the profits.
Sometimes, readers, it really does seem like the No camp is devoting most of its anti-independence efforts to putting us out of a job.
A lot of independence supporters are getting excited today about this clip of Labour shadow-cabinet MP Helen Goodman telling the BBC that Labour would keep the bedroom tax. They’re right to highlight it, but most are doing so for the wrong reasons.
Goodman’s position is that Labour WOULD still implement the hated tax, but would only penalise people for over-occupying their housing if they’d been offered smaller accommodation and refused to move. Opponents of Labour are observing the hypocrisy of the party raging against the tax in public while admitting they’d retain it, which is fair enough, but also misses the real point.
As we’ve mentioned before, it really has been a revelation to discover that the Daily Record’s iPad app – which gives you the entire printed paper, not just the selection of stories that reach the Record website – is free on weekdays. Today, for example, it brought us a large not-online Page 2 piece on former Tory cabinet minister Liam Fox’s idiotic hardline policy suggestions for the party, which were expertly ridiculed by Conservative commentator Alex Massie yesterday.
Thanks to Mr Massie’s splendid work, there’s no need for us to bother with Fox’s comments. What we noticed instead was the Record’s analysis of them.
When the Daily Record lost Magnus Gardham to the Herald, they made sure to call on a like-for-like replacement. Torcuil Crichton, the newspaper’s self-styled “man in Westminster” (and who has never approved a single comment on his political blog in almost five years), is Gardham’s only rival as the most virulently and overtly Unionist staff reporter – as opposed to opinion columnist – in the Scottish media.
Geri on Faces In Sand: “It’s not such a bad idea to self delete themselves fae social media until the adults are back in room.…” Oct 20, 15:31
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “”… modernism/neoMarxism/oppressor-oppressed nonsense that, if they had one critical braincell, they would question and refute. However, so powerful a hold…” Oct 20, 15:26
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “Sam, yes — the Knight case is an important moment in Scots legal history. It’s just not related to the…” Oct 20, 15:23
sam on Faces In Sand: “Northcode, For your information. Posted earlier further up the thread. In 1778 Scots law rejected slavery. The Court of Session…” Oct 20, 15:00
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “I’m not debating intent or moral responsibility. My point throughout has been purely structural: participation by elites is not the…” Oct 20, 14:41
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““I daresay, this is actually quite amusing in its own right” Hmmm. Aren’t you an “outsider” though? This requires prior…” Oct 20, 14:27
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““Something has happened to the last two generations” There’s a world of difference between destitute people who emigrate to make…” Oct 20, 14:24
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “You’re tying yourself into knots again, aren’t you Northy? A right old cul-de-sac there. I daresay, this is actually quite…” Oct 20, 14:09
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““thus establishing that no person could be held as a slave under Scots law” Fascinating. Take the underage Scottish lassies,…” Oct 20, 14:08
sam on Faces In Sand: “Robert Wedderburn was the illegitimate child of James Wedderburn and a black slave, Rosanna. His early life shaped his attitudes…” Oct 20, 14:03
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““talking absolute pish” Naw. You just can’t bear to acknowledge that when hostile, armed aggressors are hundreds of miles into…” Oct 20, 13:59
Southernbystander on Faces In Sand: “Sure and I didn’t mean to do that but at the end of the day is not your analysis suggesting…” Oct 20, 13:52
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““I’m describing why insider humour and outsider humour land differently — which is a descriptive point, not a moral one”…” Oct 20, 13:49
sam on Faces In Sand: “In 1778 Scots law rejected slavery. The Court of Session ruled in the case of Joseph Knight that Scotland could…” Oct 20, 13:47
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “Not for the first time, Northy, you’re (disingenuously) trying to hide behind a dictionary definition of “sovereignty” to dodge the…” Oct 20, 13:44
sam on Faces In Sand: “Sir John Wedderburn fought at Culloden for the Jacobites, was captured and executed. His two sons who had fought with…” Oct 20, 13:42
Lorncal on Faces In Sand: “H McH: It is a strange thing that those of us, from previous generations, who emigrated to far-flung places perhaps…” Oct 20, 13:38
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “I’m not talking about absolution or moral judgement. I’m talking about the structural difference between elite participation and national sovereignty.…” Oct 20, 13:23
Spartan 117 on Faces In Sand: “Sorry, you’re talking absolute pish, as per. Have a nice day.” Oct 20, 13:22
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “It seems you both are responding to an emotional claim I didn’t make. I’m not arguing that Scots should be…” Oct 20, 13:05
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “You’re applying a clear double standard here to absolve pre-1707 Scotland while holding England to a completely different metric. First…” Oct 20, 12:53
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Sorry, Northy, but “only following orders” was debunked decades ago. I hope you’re not about to be indicted for something…” Oct 20, 12:33
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““brainwashed us with being supposed to hate for, er, “reasons”” Check out Vinted. They’ll have plenty of pedestals to sell,…” Oct 20, 12:30
Southernbystander on Faces In Sand: “There are valid points here. It is interesting that in my experience jokes about (against) the English by non-English people…” Oct 20, 12:23
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “It’s also worth noting that imperial England recruited elites from many places — Ireland, Wales, India, Africa, the Caribbean, Canada,…” Oct 20, 12:18
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““Essex humour is not tied to national identity” And there we see the core of the matter exposed. Northy is…” Oct 20, 12:12
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “Caveman, the point isn’t whether some Scots participated — they clearly did. The distinction I’m making is between elite participation…” Oct 20, 12:06
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “I think the germane point is that Scotland – in conjunction with England – was a very willing, highly effective…” Oct 20, 11:28
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “Aidan, yes — elites on both sides participated in imperial expansion, and the effects weren’t evenly distributed across either society.…” Oct 20, 11:18
Aidan on Faces In Sand: “Absolutely Northcode – but a more succinct way of putting it is that English and Scottish elites both working together…” Oct 20, 11:07