We were pretty stunned after the first 24 hours of our fundraising project, and we’re barely any less dumbfounded after another week.
Unionists never miss a chance to sneer at “Braveheart”, a film which won five Oscars and tells a true story (very heavily embellished by Hollywood) about a people’s fight for self-determination. Only last night, Scotland Tonight retweeted one eager young No voter using it as an explanation for the increase in support for independence among the 18-24 demographic, even though the film came out almost 20 years ago.
This sort of thing, though, is fine:
That’s because nationalism is great, so long as it’s British.
There’s a faintly astonishing story in today’s Scotsman. As if belatedly realising the damage that they’d done to the No campaign by detailing Labour’s toys-out-of-pram tantrum in the House Of Commons this week, the paper runs a firefighting exercise of a follow-up piece which reveals no new information, but gives the party a helpful platform from which to try to winch itself out of the hole.
(A “senior party source” duly obliged with the comically-absurd assertion that “the party’s main concern was that without a reference to independence, an MP could be stopped from speaking for going off the subject.”)
That’s not the astonishing part, of course – giving Unionist parties a platform is what the Scotsman exists for. The amazing thing is the size of the gulf between what the story reports as the reason for the debate’s cancellation and what the person whose debate it was had already said in public a full day earlier.
Fans of TV panel shows will probably be aware of a regular strand on the BBC’s Mock The Week called “Between The Lines”, in which one comedian delivers lines from a speech in the persona of a public figure, while the other translates what they really mean. There’s a chucklesome example here.
For a bit of fun we’ve decided to have our own attempt, with a letter sent out this week to the No campaign’s mailing list by the independence debate’s own Hugh Dennis: “Better Together” campaign director and creative truth interpreter Blair McDougall.
As veteran readers will know, we like to keep our blogroll fresh so that it offers only the leanest and juiciest collection of unmissable sites for when you’ve devoured every last page of Wings Over Scotland. This month we’ve had a small prune to make room for some new blood, if you’ll forgive the mixed metaphor.
Out go the Herald and Scotsman because, hey, you know fine where the Herald and Scotsman are. That freed a couple of slots which we’ve given to the all-encompassing “Dundee wifey” Subrosa and Liberal Democrat Voters For Independence, both very welcome additions which broaden our outlook considerably.
We’ve also hoofed the Spectator’s braying Fraser Nelson out of the Zany Comedy Relief section for not gracing us with any Scottish-themed doltishness in weeks, and his replacement is a grassroots Labour blog that we think you’re going to love to bits. Ladies and gents, please revel in the positive case for the Union that is Niko’s Bar.
Otherwise, as you were. Suggestions always welcomed.
Never let it be said that Wings Over Scotland isn’t the sort of fair-minded site that would acknowledge when the Scottish press prints some reasonable and balanced commentary once in a while:
“The last time I wrote about the tone of the debate on Scottish independence, I came to the conclusion that there was little to choose between the two sides in the quality of the arguments and the calm or intelligence with which they were presented.
Since then, there has been something of an improvement on the nationalist side, perhaps through entrusting the presentation to Nicola Sturgeon rather than to other politicians I could name. But there has been an appalling deterioration on the unionist side.”
In coverage of the latest Ipsos-MORI Scottish Public Opinion Monitor poll, the media will likely focus as usual on the not-particularly-dramatic headline figures, showing a welcome but not enormously relevant (so far away from the vote) swing of 3.5% to Yes. What we find much more interesting is the data a couple of pages down.
We’ve spoken before on this site about a couple of political concepts based around different ways of winning votes by bombarding the electorate with untruths so relentlessly that they come to be accepted as fact.
One of them, the “Big Lie”, was a term infamously coined by Hitler to describe a strategy regularly deployed by the Nazis in which a falsehood would be perpetrated which was so diametrically and spectacularly at odds with the reality, people would instinctively reject the thought that anyone would have the bare-faced audacity to say it if it wasn’t true, and therefore it must be.
Language needs some kind of brand new term, though, to accurately encapsulate the magnitude of what Scottish Labour have just tried to pull off.
We’ve had quite a jolt this afternoon, readers. The New Statesman has just posted a story proclaiming itself “Britain’s biggest political website”, citing impressive figures of 1.15 million unique users per month and 3.35m pageviews.
We clicked on the story (from a tweet) because we thought there must have been a typo – 1.15m is close to 40 times as many readers as Wings Over Scotland, yet 3.35m pageviews is only about four times what we get. But the story backed up the numbers, and provided a few more for comparison:
New Statesman: 1.15m users, 3.35m views per month
Guido Fawkes: 468K users, 2.34m views
The Spectator: 350K users, 2.5m views
Iain Dale’s Diary: 235K users, 409K views
These are the sites suggested by TNS as the UK political blogosphere’s big hitters, along with some others it didn’t give figures for. But that wasn’t what had us rubbing our eyes and doing a double-take.
It defies belief, in a way. It’s now been a full week since we mocked Willie Rennie’s embarrassingly clueless claim that an independent Scotland would need to negotiate “14,000 international treaties”, in a feature which was widely circulated and quoted.
So ridiculed was Rennie’s claim that even the Scotsman couldn’t make it stick, acknowledging on Monday that it had been exaggerated by at least 70%, with a maximum of 8500 actually still being in effect, let alone relevant to Scotland. An entertaining introductory package on last night’s Newsnight Scotland even highlighted our particular favourite of the UK’s treaties.
At which point the programme brought on the rare protected species that is Scotland’s only Tory MP, the Scotland Office minister David Mundell.
The passage below comes from the lead story in the Scotsman’s politics section today. We’ve highlighted a few of the more interesting bullet points.
“An independent Scotland will have to impose strict limits on spending and agree borrowing curbs with the rest of the UK to avoid the wrath of the financial markets, advisers to the Scottish Government have said. The advice also states that austerity will continue to bite “irrespective” of whether the country votes Yes or No next year.
However, the Fiscal Commission, set up by the SNP government last year to study the economics of independence, said the restrictions would be outweighed by the “flexibility” of independence, which would allow Scottish ministers to pick a way through the financial crisis facing western countries.
The 221-page document, commissioned by the Scottish Government, recommended that an independent Scotland should keep the pound and the Bank of England, and sign a pact with the UK on financial stability. Such policies would provide a mix of “autonomy, cohesion and continuity”, chairman Crawford Beveridge said yesterday. The pro-independence former Scottish Enterprise chief insisted: “Scotland has the clear potential to be a successful independent nation.”“
So here’s the quiz: guess which one formed the headline.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
