Wings Over Scotland

For the thousands of readers who slightly startlingly visited yesterday's piece on Bath's retail economy (you never know which are going to be the popular stories in this business), here's the December 2009 WoS feature on Newport referenced in it, which I've unlocked from the WoS subscriber section. (I tried to just copy it over into this blog, but it was a hideous technical nightmare.)

How To Commit A Terrorist Atrocity And Get Away With It

If I can find the time one day next week, I'm going to try to go back to Newport and see how it's getting along two years on. Stand by for upbeat feelgood action!

Ed Miliband's speech to the Scottish Labour conference, 2nd March 2012:

"If we believe in the idea of Scotland as a progressive beacon, why would we turn our back on the redistributive union – the United Kingdom?"

John McFall, Baron of Alcluith, Scottish Labour MP until 2010 and ex-chairman of the House Of Commons Treasury Committee, on BBC News at 8.46am, 21st March 2012:

"The North-South divide is getting bigger, not smaller."

When Labour ask you to vote for the status quo of the "redistributive Union" in 2014, readers, remember which direction it is that the party – by its own admission – wants to keep redistributing the UK's money in.

And so tick follows tock. Alert WoS viewers may recall a subscriber feature from way back in December 2009 in which we chronicled the grim retail decay of the Welsh city of Newport. But two years into the Tories' medieval bloodletting "cure" for Britain's financial woes, the evidence of the country's slow but inexorable economic collapse can no longer be contained in the ghettoes of the working class. Because this is Bath.

This compact city of just 80,000 or so is swelled all year round by swarming hordes of well-heeled tourists (because you have to be well-heeled to come here at all) who troop in in their literally-millions to admire the pretty architecture and spew money into a local economy that's already cherry-pink with high-earning professionals.

I've lived here, lurking unnoticed in one of Britain's wealthiest corners, for over 21 years now. In all that time, it's hard to think back and recall even a single instance of a city-centre shop that's been empty for anything other than a brief transitional period between owners. Not any more.

Read the rest of this entry →

We were struck by a little parable in the Scotsman today, penned by our favourite teller of fireside morality tales Michael Kelly. (Who, as attentive readers will know, only fails to grace our “Zany Comedy Relief” links column due to the lack of any central hub address for his contributions to the paper.)

In what we could most charitably describe as a “there but for the grace of God” scenario, the man whose chairmanship of Celtic took it to within hours of the fate that’s currently befalling Rangers reiterated the tired old lie about how Scotland needs both of the Old Firm, but in the course of the article he also passed on an interesting fact we hadn’t previously known.

“Rangers were once before in financial difficulty. It was in the 1920’s when my grandfather, James Kelly (a former Scotland centre-half), was chairman of Celtic. Rangers had a temporary cash flow problem and their board came out to his house in Blantyre to explain the problem and seek help. Celtic gave them an unconditional short-term loan. The fact that Rangers felt able to ask and that Celtic willingly responded indicates that both clubs were aware of their inter-dependence.”

We couldn’t help but find the 1920s football situation strikingly analogous to the modern political one. Rangers and Celtic are supposedly the bitterest of rivals, and their fans treat each other like diametrically opposed poles, with honour and virtue the sole property of one side and bigotry and hatred found exclusively on the other. Yet when it comes to the crunch, the institutions themselves know which side their bread is buttered, and unhesitatingly come together in their mutual interest. Remind you of any two big political parties at all?

Read the rest of this entry →

Here we go, then. The debut Straight Debate is with Douglas "Edinburgh Liberal" McLellan, a Lib Dem member and activist, and in it we discuss the timing of the referendum, the meaning of the word "independence" and, appropriately enough, the tone of public discourse. (We had more stuff we wanted to cover too, but after we got to 2500 words from just two questions each it seemed a good time to take a break. So here's how we got on for starters.)

Read the rest of this entry →

The media and blogosphere is awash with anguished, hand-wringing pleas for the independence debate to be conducted in a mature, reasoned and intelligent way over the next couple of years, but which do very little to bring that situation about. Yet it's a vital goal, because the way we're going whoever wins the referendum will find themselves living in a bitterly divided Scotland torn apart by years of vicious fighting.

Looking to the mainstream media is hopeless, because it's simply not set up for adult discussion. Politicians are crammed into tiny amounts of airtime which encourage nothing but vacant point-scoring soundbites – prepared in advance, often repeated robotically, and on no account to be deflected by anything the interviewer might have actually asked. (Though in fairness, on his night the BBC's Gordon Brewer can be as tenacious an inquisitor as these islands have seen.)

The online arena is no better, overwhelmingly inhabited by partisan sites – including this one – many of which also censor large swathes of dissenting opinion behind cowardly moderation policies. (Which we don't – only a contributor's first comment is moderated, as an anti-spam measure.) It's almost unheard of for opposing sides to undertake any sort of above-the-line dialogue.

So we're going to have a go.

Read the rest of this entry →

We greatly enjoyed the intervention of former First Minister and now Lord of Glenscorrodale, Jack McConnell, in the referendum debate last night. Appearing on both Scotland Tonight and Newsnight Scotland, he graced the nation's airwaves to present a statesman-like call for "compromise" on the planning of the vote on Scotland's constitutional question, and generously offering his assistance to the Prime Minister and First Minister in untangling the situation. Our favourite was his explanation of how to compromise on the timing of the poll.

"There are those who are pressing for the referendum to be held this year as quickly as possible, the SNP want it to be held in nearly three years' time – I'm suggesting we compromise on that, let's have an agreement that we hold the referendum in about 18 months' time, maybe 15 months' time."

Now, we're not quite sure who the people allegedly "pressing for the referendum to be held this year" are. We don't know of anyone even remotely sane who's seriously proposed that it could or should be held in 2012 – the UK government's own suggested timetable is for an "early" vote in September 2013. The SNP, meanwhile, want "Autumn 2014", which is widely held to mean October of that year. The SNP have never confirmed that claim, but let's use it for the sake of argument.

What that means is that Lord McConnell's proposal for a "compromise" date between September 2013 and October 2014 is, um… September 2013. (Or alternatively June 2013, ie three months earlier than even the UK government's preferred date, never mind the Scottish Government's.) No wonder he repeatedly struggled to conceal an embarrassed smirk during the Scotland Tonight interview.

Lord McConnell's other envisaged compromises follow surprisingly similar lines.

NUMBER OF QUESTIONS:
Unionists: one question
SNP: open to second question
Compromise: one question

FRANCHISE:
Unionists: no vote for 16/17-year-olds
SNP: vote for 16/17-year-olds
Compromise: no vote for 16/17-year-olds.

LEGALITY:
Unionists: UK Government must give permission to hold the referendum
SNP: Scottish Government has the right to hold the referendum
Compromise: UK Government must give permission to hold the referendum

And so on and so forth. Amusingly, the noble Lord also still hasn't even conceded that independence gets to be the "Yes" answer in the referendum, putting forward the hilarious "compromise" notion that BOTH sides should get a "Yes" option, astonishingly concluding that this would be an aid to clarity and decisiveness. (Though he subsequently went on to talk of "the Yes and No campaigns" anyway.)

We await the logical outcome of Lord McConnell's thought process – that we should compromise between the SNP's position of having a referendum and the Unionist side's ingrained opposition to the whole idea, by simply not having a referendum at all.

We have a paid subscription to the Herald, but it's not working at the moment, locking us out from access. In case it's a widespread problem, we feel compelled to reprint this amazing story – which curiously didn't make the website front page today and was buried in the politics section – just to make absolutely sure that nobody misses it.

ENGLISH 'WOULD BOMB OUR AIRPORTS'

Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, in an independent Scotland, could be bombed by an English government if it was threatened by an unfriendly country, a former deputy leader of the UK Conservative Party has warned.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie also warned that SNP policies removing nuclear forces from Scottish bases and reducing Scotland's navy "essentially" to fishery protection vessels could make Scotland a war zone. He said a country with a few fishery protection vessels was "asking to be invaded".

The former Lord Advocate and Solicitor General said he did not see who might have "evil intentions" against England but he had missed "the import of the Balkan crisis and the ramifications of 9/11" and would hesitate "to predict the crises even in the rest of the century".

He foresaw the possibility of an enemy commander ordering the runways at Scottish airports to be cleared because his planes would be landing and "if that were to happen what alternative would England have but to come and bomb the hell out of Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport".

He suggested one solution would be to base the nuclear fleet, currently based on the Clyde, to Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands.

Ponder for a moment, readers, the media coverage if a significant SNP figure had suggested the reverse scenario. Wouldn't that be fun?

Okay, so it's not the most shocking headline we've ever run. But it's dismaying to see how openly Scottish Labour recoils from the very idea. Over on LabourHame today, Tom Harris runs yet another another one-eyed piece we won't dignify with a link, about how SNP supporters are nasty and arrogant while Labour's are paragons of humble virtue to a man. It only took him a few minutes to delete our comment in response:

"The fact is the nationalists might win. I hope they don’t, but they might. We might win. We might not, but we might." [Tom Harris]

Speaking as an evil cybernat, I agree completely with this statement. But when moaning on about how SNP supporters apparently have a monopoly on certainty, as usual you ignore the beam in your own eye. You don't have to look very far to see that attitude on the Labour side – in fact, only as far as your nearest rival for LabourHame's most prolific contributer, Mr Ian Smart, who asserts at every opportunity that (a) there won't be a referendum at all, and (b) if there is, the Yes vote will be 28%.

You're a pretty clever guy, Tom. Imagine what a force you could be in the campaign if you abandoned the puerile, transparently-hypocritical sniping that makes you so easy to mock and dismiss as a troll, and actually tried engaging in a vaguely mature debate.

Sadly, despite our (actually entirely genuine) plea, Tom has very much nailed his colours – we're not really sure which ones those are – to the "puerile, transparently hypocritical sniping" mast. We think that's a terrible shame, for reasons we've covered previously in some detail, but on Labour's head be it.

If you’re a bit naive, it can be hard to understand why the parties of the Union are so bitterly opposed to a second question on the referendum ballot. All three of them, after all, claim to want more powers for Scotland (though not yet, and they don’t want to tell us which ones), and after all the fuss they’ve made before it seems odd that they don’t feel the need to get any democratic mandate for them.

It’s also odd because it’s pretty much agreed by everyone on all sides that a second question for, let’s call it Devo-X, would all but completely sink the SNP’s chances of winning a Yes to full independence, whereas in a straight two-way face-off it’s already very close and the numbers (as well as the arguments) are slowly but steadily moving in the Nats’ direction. That appears an awfully big gamble for the No parties to take purely in order to deny the SNP something (more powers, but short of independence) that all the Unionists are supposedly in favour of.

So what’s the real reason? Well, it’s not too hard to figure out.

Read the rest of this entry →

The Unionist parties aren’t completely stupid. While we all know that one of their core arguments against independence is that Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid to survive without the rest of the UK, they’re not quite daft enough to be caught coming out and bluntly saying it in those terms.

So they were faced with a tricky dilemma with the release of the latest GERS figures last week, which showed that Scotland contributed over £2bn more to the UK economy in the 2009/10 fiscal year than it got back in UK Government spending. (And that figure itself neglects a number of large discrepancies in the figures, where money considered as “Scottish spending” isn’t actually spent in Scotland at all, such as almost a billion pounds on defence alone.)

One approach is to get friendly journalists to print unchallenged quotes and then use them in your headlines. The other, not-unrelated strategy is to spin the figures in such a way that Scotland subsidising the rest of the UK somehow sounds like the exact opposite – or as the Herald’s story put it, “Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat politicians claimed the report proved Scotland was better off within the UK.”

The job of explaining this remarkable distortion of the truth fell to the unfortunate Ken Macintosh, finance spokesman for Scottish Labour, who was shoved onto Newsnight Scotland on March 7th to explain why Scotland having more money on the plus side of its books would be a bad thing. It was a tough line to push, and poor Ken was forced to begin by trying to convince viewers that he didn’t understand the basic concept of how arithmetic works. Let’s break down his comments and see how he did, and what it tells us about the Unionist vision of Scotland, starting with his opening gambit.

Read the rest of this entry →

Tom Harris MP on Twitter, 10th March 2012:

"To the homeless, the unemployed, the hungry, the vulnerable, I say this: the SNP will give you a Scottish passport!"

Oof! That's some biting satire from the Scottish Labour man there, suggesting the SNP will do nothing for these unfortunate people other than change their nationality! That's going to sting those pesky "Tartan Tory" Nats! Hurrah for the good comrades of the Red Flag who stand up for the poor and the dispossessed!

But wait a minute – who's this vile, compassionless Tory slimebag sort, being quoted approvingly in the Telegraph by arch-Tory columnist Alan Cochrane barely three months earlier for telling those same unemployed, homeless and vulnerable to go and get stuffed, because his party has nothing to offer them?

"We were set up as the party to represent the values of working people, working being the key word. We weren't set up as some sort of charity to help the poorest in society – the long-term unemployed, the benefit dependent, the drug addicted, the homeless."

What? It's Tom Harris of the Scottish Labour Party, you say? We're confused again.