Wings Over Scotland

If they spend any amount of time browsing through Wings over Sealand, alert readers may well find themselves noticing a number of recurring themes popping up throughout its pages, and one of the commonest is a violent contempt for nearly all videogames journalism. This is because, not to put too fine a point on it, nearly all videogames journalism is a crime against humanity. (Either in the literary, ethical or sociological senses, and usually all three.)

Practiced largely by cynical-yet-incompetent careerists who regard themselves as essentially the games industry's door-to-door salesmen – rather than as a safeguard standing between the industry and the public, protecting consumers from wasting their money on terrible products – the dismally low standard of nearly all videogames journalism was and remains the reason why your correspondent felt the need to take the job on for himself, so that at least on occasion it might be done halfway-properly.

And if the 21-years-and-counting career that followed that decision isn't a reason to hate videogames journalists, then this reporter doesn't know what is.

Read the rest of this entry →

If you’re pushed for time, we’ll give you the answer up front: when it’s in the Scottish media. But a closer analysis of yesterday’s and this morning’s press and broadcasting provides a full and and illuminating picture of the reality. The fact is, the nationalists aren’t paranoid – their own country’s media really is out to get them.

Those of us watching events unfold yesterday afternoon were a little bemused when various sources started tweeting summarised results, which showed Labour as the biggest winners. To anyone comparing the results to those of the last election, those gain/loss figures were perplexing. Set against 2007, the SNP had gained 61 seats, not 57, and Labour just 46 rather than 58. (In both cases almost entirely at the expense of the Lib Dems, who lost nearly 100 seats. Hardly any seats anywhere in the country changed hands directly from Labour to SNP or vice versa.)

We couldn’t at the time, and we still can’t now, find any published record of where the numbers for the second interpretation derive from.

Read the rest of this entry →

A quick analysis of the Scottish council election results, then (with Dunoon still to vote and the Cromarty Firth ward in Highlands still to declare, the two areas between them being likely to return 2-3 SNP and 3-4 independents, no Labour or Tories).

The SNP started with 15 more seats nationwide than Labour and will end up with 30-32 more, at least doubling their lead. The nationalists and Labour both gained overall control of two new councils. It looks likely that the SNP will have won the popular vote, which they didn’t manage in 2007.

That would seem remarkably good progress for a government that’s been in power for five years during a recession, is having to implement hefty budget cuts passed down from London, and has endured a large amount of recent bad press. Compare and contrast with the thrashing delivered to the UK’s governing coalition on the same day, and the SNP managing to not only hold what it had but extend its advantage and capture outright control of two councils appears a striking success.

The media narrative, however, is focusing on what the SNP didn’t win, and (not unreasonably) concentrating on the country’s most important councils, so let’s take a look at Labour’s three much-trumpeted big results, in Scotland’s largest cities.

GLASGOW
Labour lead over SNP in 2007: 23 seats
Labour lead over SNP in 2012: 17 seats

EDINBURGH
Labour lead over SNP in 2007: 2 seats
Labour lead over SNP in 2012: 2 seats

ABERDEEN
SNP lead over Labour in 2007: 2 seats
Labour lead over SNP in 2012: 2 seats

So a net gain for Labour of 4 seats in Aberdeen, no change in Edinburgh, and a net gain of 6 seats for the SNP in Glasgow. That means that in Scotland’s three biggest cities, where Labour’s performance was most spectacular, the net result when all the dust has settled is still a 2-seat improvement for the SNP over Labour.

(It remains to be seen, of course, what deals are done and who ends up in the ruling groups in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The SNP have easily enough seats in each city to lead a coalition with other parties and freeze Labour out.)

With the nationalists suffering in Glasgow from the anti-sectarianism bill and the Rangers crisis, and in Aberdeen over the Union City Gardens controversy and the ongoing Donald Trump fiasco, we suspect the party will regard a 2-seat net gain across those cities, accompanied by a raft of substantial and significant gains elsewhere, as the kind of “defeat” it can live with pretty happily.

This article’s about the council elections, but allow us to first digress for a moment. One of the odder little quirks of the online independence movement is that, of those who express a preference when it comes to the subject of Scotland’s national sport, a disproportionately high percentage seem to be Aberdeen supporters. (Possibly partly explained by the North-East, as the First Minister’s political stomping ground and centre of the oil industry, having always been fertile ground for nationalism.)

This blog is among that number, and so for those of us currently living in England and seeking to maintain an interest in the people’s game Manchester United is the logical choice of club to follow, at least for as long as Sir Alex Ferguson is at the helm. (Even if the daft old fool himself has been out of Scotland for so long he still thinks Labour are socialists, and dutifully trots out every time they need a celebrity backer.)

So when we saw the team United put out for the crucial Premiership derby against Manchester City last week, we were concerned. A midfield of Carrick (the English Barry Ferguson, we’ve always thought), the recently un-retired Scholes and the rusty Park (making his first start since January) clearly wasn’t designed to provide a pacy attacking threat, and before the game started we tweeted “That’s an old, slow Man U side lining up tonight. Looks like a chokehold.”

And sure enough, as the match progressed Ferguson’s team showed beyond any reasonable doubt that it had been sent out with the intention of smothering City’s menacing attack and securing the 0-0 draw that would have all but sealed the league for the Old Trafford club. Sluggish and toothless, with Wayne Rooney a lonely and frustrated figure up front, United failed – for the first time in three years, said the statisticians afterwards – to register a single shot on the opposition’s goal, and when a wobbly defence that’s been badly missing Nemanja Vidic all season offered Vincent Kompany a free header from eight yards out, there never looked like being any way back for a side that just a month ago had a commanding eight-point lead at the top of the table and appeared to be a shoo-in for a record-breaking 20th title.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’re not sure how to feel about the continuing prospect/threat (depending on your perspective) of a British Olympic football team with Scottish players in it. Sepp Blatter, the immovable president of FIFA and a man who enjoys the patronage of a great many smaller footballing nations who jealously eye the UK’s anachronistic presence in the game, has made the position on the matter about as clear as he ever makes anything.

“If you start to put together a combined team for the Olympic Games, the question will automatically come up that there are four different associations so how can they play in one team? If this is the case then why the hell do they have four associations and four votes and their own vice-presidency?

“This will put into question all the privileges that the British associations were given by the Congress in 1946.“

In other words, picking players from all four UK nations DOES represent a threat to their continued separate status. There has never been more pressure on qualifying places for the World Cup and European Championship, and Blatter would not find it hard to mobilise enough votes to change the status quo if he thought it might be in any way to his advantage.

Clearly, then, having players like Stephen Fletcher and Barry Bannan conspicuously announcing their willingness to play for such a team places the very existence of the Scottish national side in peril, and as such the reaction of all patriotic Scots would logically be one of horror and anger. We can’t imagine that any but the most fervent diehard Unionist in Scotland wants to see the Scottish team wiped out of existence, and any player prepared to risk that possibility – and it IS a possibility, as Blatter’s words make plain – for the sake of their own tiny personal gain as a second-string player in a third-rate competition ought to expect nothing but justified contempt.

But from a nationalist perspective, perhaps we all ought instead to be urging Barry Bannan and his pals to do everything in their power to pull on the Team GB shirt this summer. Maybe we should all write heartfelt letters to the SFA pleading with them to withdraw their objections to the principle. Because we can think of no single event that would be more likely to push support for a Yes vote in the 2014 referendum past critical mass than for FIFA to forcibly eject Scotland from world football.

Naturally, independence would see the national side restored, this time as of right rather than by a special bending of the rules resented by the rest of the world. Rather than being shunned, despised and booed every time he kicks a ball for the rest of his life, Barry Bannan would become a Scottish national hero on a par with William Wallace, Robert The Bruce and Wee Archie Gemmill. There would be statues of him in every city, and stirring folk songs in his honour would be sung every year on Barry Bannan Day. His money would be no good in any pub in the land.

In an age of cynicism, Scotland is crying out for modern-day heroes. Will Barry Bannan be the man to hear the call and lead a nation to its destiny? (Possibly by way of the nation taking a detour across some fields while running away from a car crash smashed off its nut, in true Scottish style.) Only time will tell.

Apologies for the tinny sound, but this clip from English-language channel Russia Today is worth a watch, particularly the middle section:

News stations, of course, have their own agendas, but it’s always interesting to see an outsider’s viewpoint on how Britain’s national broadcaster handles certain issues. We’re huge fans of the BBC on a UK-wide level, and have no problem with the idea or level of the licence fee, but we find it a little surprising that anyone would even expect it to be impartial on the subject of Scottish independence.

Far from being a neutral observer, the BBC has a direct and entirely tangible vested interest when it comes to the matter of whether Scotland stays in the UK or not. Scottish licence fees provide the Corporation with around £300m a year in revenue (about 9% of the total), but it only spends around 6% of its money in Scotland.

Even that proportion is a result of some substantial recent increases – just a few years ago the figure was as low as 3.7%, or considerably less than half what Scotland contributed to the BBC coffers, so the accumulated net “profit” the Corporation has made from Scottish viewers and listeners over the years is measured in billions.

Of that £300m, approximately a third is actually spent on BBC Scotland to make programmes of specifically Scottish interest and another third on Scotland-based production of UK-wide shows, with the final third used to subsidise the BBC’s UK-wide operations. With the Corporation’s funding under attack from the coalition government (leading to a planned reduction in BBC Scotland’s budget to £86m by 2016/17), the potential loss of approximately £100m of net revenue every year from Scottish licence-fee payers should the country vote for independence is one it can ill afford.

So regardless of the bias or otherwise of individual journalists, the bigger picture is in pin-sharp high definition: Scottish independence is directly, measurably and substantially contrary to the interests of the BBC. It’s a fact worth keeping in mind.

We don’t plan to do this every month (and we’ve only done it once before), but we hope you’ll forgive us for celebrating a small Wings Over Scotland milestone. In April our readership figures smashed all previous records, and smashed them hard. Page views broke through the 100,000 barrier and kept on going, and by the end of the month were considerably higher than March and February put together.

We’re extra-pleased because there was no one huge story responsible for distorting the numbers (unlike in February, when the “Why Scotland Doesn’t Need Rangers” piece got over 15,000 by itself, many from people who don’t normally read the blog). April’s stats grew steadily and organically – the most popular single article contributing just 4% of the total compared to February’s 30% – and they show no signs of slowing.

Thanks to everyone who’s read the site, linked to it, plugged the stories on various social-media sites and everything else that contributes to this modest but gratifying success. Hopefully we’ll keep doing what more and more of you seem to like, and the voice of intelligent nationalism will get louder still.

Impressively we’ve managed to sneeze so powerfully and manfully today that we blew a filling out, so while we go off to the dentist to have it nailed back in here are a few of the better pieces from the Scottish political media and blogosphere over the last few days, in case any of them passed you by.

Alex Massie’s been in a fine vein of form recently on the Spectator, and this analysis of Ed Miliband’s comments on Scotland was particularly insightful. We were also pleased to stumble across this archive piece from a year ago echoing almost exactly our own recent question on the same theme, which remains unanswered.

Stephen Noon blogs much less frequently than Mr Massie, but when he does it’s usually a cracker, and this related piece is no exception, while Kate Higgins shows what she can do when she’s not randomly calling people misogynists with this excellent study of the topic. And finally on Murdochgate, Newsnet Scotland makes an interesting and telling observation that went unnoticed by anyone else.

Away from the Murdoch issue, we don’t often find much to commend in the Telegraph – and less still from Fraser Nelson – but we couldn’t fault this look at “tricolour Britain”. And the increasingly impressive A Sair Fecht enlightened us with an illuminating history of Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham, founder of the Scottish Labour Party, the Independent Labour Party and the National Party of Scotland, one of the forerunners of the SNP.

That should take you through lunch. We’re off to the bone-driller.

The 30th anniversary of the ZX Spectrum has sparked a flurry of nostalgia pieces in the games press, many of which for some reason can’t help comparing the Sinclair machine to its main American competitor. And since the games press is a dictatorship of dullards, the C64 has come out on top in most of them, invariably helped by a colossally biased selection of judges.

Eurogamer, for example, takes a big dump on the Speccy’s birthday cake by calling on Julian Rignall (editor of a C64 magazine), Steve Jarratt (editor of a C64 magazine), Gary Penn (writer on a C64 magazine), Gary Liddon (writer on a C64 magazine), Jason Page (a C64 coder) and Paul Glancey (writer on a C64 magazine) – with only some three-year-old quotes from the sadly-deceased Jonathan “Joffa” Smith holding up the Speccy’s end of the debate – to come to the startling opinion that it deems the C64 the superior machine. Last month’s Retro Gamer reached a similar conclusion for much the same set of spastic-faced reasons. (“Whine bleat SID chip wah wah wah.”)

But fuck all of them, because they’re all cunts and they can suck our dicks.

Read the rest of this entry →

When we started a politics website, we invested in the best equipment money could buy, because we knew we’d need to guard against double standards ourselves as well as measuring them in others. The Super HypocrisOMeter 5000 is an industrial-strength device, built to cope with the most extreme manifestations of a trait that is the stock-in-trade of all politicians. But this morning we switched it on and tried to run Labour’s reaction to a story in today’s Express through it, and look what happened:

Let’s be clear. We’re not especially fussed about the comments themselves. We’ve figuratively wished a few people dead in our time, and as we’ve recently noted, at the end of the day it’s just words on the internet. We’re deeply dismayed at the growing phenomenon where people can be prosecuted, fired from their job, or even threatened with prison just for saying unpleasant stuff that plainly isn’t meant in any threatening sense. Salmond Senior’s own admirable response strikes the perfect note of disdain.

We’re not even going to attempt to whip up any outrage about the fact that the Labour member in question chose to attack Alex Salmond’s 90-year-old father rather than the First Minister himself – that’s pathetic and despicable, rather than hypocritical. Nope, the thing that catastrophically overloaded the triple-locked shielding and emergency cutout protection of the Super HypocrisOMeter 5000 was Labour’s astonishing attempt to half-heartedly distance the party from the comments. As well as blithely and shamefully trying to insist that Mr Kelly’s views reflected a “substantive issue”, Labour’s unnamed spokesman offered the following high-handed dismissal:

“This desperate smear campaign falls at the first hurdle because this Facebook page is not owned, managed, or operated by Scottish Labour, and it will not detract from the rantings and ravings of SNP candidates – sacked or otherwise – online.

“Political parties are responsible for their candidates and officials, but members of the public must be responsible for their own behaviour.”

Those readers whose minds haven’t just boggled all the way into unconsciousness will very likely be struggling to reconcile this statement with Labour’s previous views on online extremism, at least when it’s practiced by the infamous “cybernats“:

“Mr Gray made a strongly worded attack on what he calls ‘vile cybernats’ during his final Scottish Labour conference speech. And today Mr Gray writes in The Scotsman that he has discovered ‘at least one post suggesting that a particular journalist should be shot’.

Mr Gray also accused the SNP leadership of a “tolerance of this culture”. He also said that all voters ‘should be worried’ by internet postings from some SNP supporters, who he says are ‘poisoning the vital debate we now face’ on Scotland’s future. There is also a claim from Mr Gray, who stands down as leader on 17 December, that the SNP internet posters are ‘undermining the decency of the country’.“

Iain Gray has, of course, been far from alone among senior Labour figures in insisting that the “cybernats” – a disparate group of largely-anonymous individuals, of whom all, some or none might actually be SNP members – operate under the explicit instruction and control of the SNP leadership:

“Labour’s Anas Sarwar said: “Everyone knows that Alex Salmond desperately wants a second question on the ballot and now he has left the door open for his army of cybernats to deliver the response he wants.”“

Ever since 2011, Labour and its tame media have ramped up the angle that the SNP leadership must “do something about the cybernats“. Prominent features are headlined with pious pleas or strident demands for the SNP to condemn their nefarious activities, even as elected Labour MPs, MSPs and councillors (rather than random internet users) freely compare Alex Salmond to Hitler, Robert Mugabe or Slobodan Milosevic or call SNP politicians and members ‘traitors” without the hysterical press opprobrium which accompanies “cybernats” doing the same thing.

The Facebook group on which Alex Salmond’s father was wished dead was not an open group populated by any old internet loonies who wandered along. It’s closed to the public and the controlled, vetted membership of 533 includes the Scottish party’s foremost and finest – as well as current “leader” Johann Lamont and her “deputy” Anas Sarwar along with Shadow Scottish Secretary Margaret Curran, former First Minister Jack McConnell, MPs Cathy Jamieson, Ian Davidson, Eric Joyce, Sarah Boyack, Tom Harris, Tom Greatrex and Tom Watson, and front-bench MSPs Jackie Baillie, Ken Macintosh and James Kelly, are all members.

(Most of the prominent online Labour activists whose names our readers will recognise also belong to the group, including John Ruddy, Aidan Skinner, Duncan Hothersall and Cllr Alex “Braveheart” Gallagher. Only the lovely Terry Kelly is unaccountably missing.)

We don’t think it’s dreadfully unreasonable to suggest that with a membership list like that, Scottish Labour has a lot more control and responsibility over what’s posted on the group than the SNP does over random anonymous Twitter users or comment-thread posters. In a world where suggesting that certain actions of rival politicians might be “anti-Scottish” generates hundreds of column inches and loud demands for resignation, we look forward to the blanket media coverage demanding that the leadership takes urgent action against this vile cyberBrit menace nestling in the very bosom of Scottish Labour. We’re certain it’ll be along any minute now.

The political is the personal. Nobody comes out of the womb with a view on the merits of the free market versus state interventionism – opinions are formed by someone’s experiences and environment. So where do “cybernats” come from? Speaking as one myself, and quite a recently-minted one at that, let me see if I can explain it.

I wasn’t indoctrinated into the Nationalist cause as a child – my parents are pro-Union (but I’m working on that). My upbringing was British, and I was proud of it. So what went wrong with the United Kingdom that now in adult life I disavow the very notion of Britishness and strive to bring that same UK to an end?

Read the rest of this entry →

We’ve been feeling a little hurt this week, readers. Judging by the number of bloggers and suchlike who’ve huffily blocked us on Twitter for no apparent reason, or just said nasty and untruthful things about us, we were beginning to think we must be bad people. So we were relieved beyond measure when we asked website-of-the-moment Klouchebag (which marks users on four undesirable traits, with low scores out of a maximum 100 being good) to analyse our tweet history and got this reassuring result:

Just for a bit of lightweight Friday-night fun, then, we decided to run a random selection of our follow list through the machine too, along with a small scattering of wildcards and some of the delicate wee flowers we’re clearly still too awful for, and see what an impartial automated observer made of it all.

Read the rest of this entry →