Wings Over Scotland

A little while before the Prime Minister’s visit to Scotland this week, several newspapers ran a competition to find the Scottish people who liked him the most in the whole country, who as their prize would get to meet him on his little jaunt north of the border. In this chill winter, warm your hearts at the beaming faces of the lucky winners, and feel the love that binds our United Kingdom together.

Read the rest of this entry →

So was that it? The Unionist media is briefing hard that David Cameron finally laid out the fabled “positive case for the Union” in Edinburgh this week. You can judge the positivity or otherwise for yourself by reading the full text of his speech (which was far more delicately-judged than his previous clodhopping intervention, but still contained the traditional doom-laden warnings of “danger”, terrorist attack, banking collapse and so on) here, but whether the message was positive or not, the one thing it certainly wasn’t was a case for the Union.

Cameron listed a fairly impressive set of reasons why Scotland was great (even managing to cite Keir Hardie through what must have been gritted teeth). He explained why the past was great, because in it the UK had forged great institutions like the NHS (which is already an entirely separate and fully-devolved body in Scotland) and a “generous” welfare state – both of which his government is now dismantling as fast as it humanly (and inhumanly) can. And he hinted at a great future, in which Scotland would enjoy greater devolved powers and responsibilities.

The problem is, the referendum will be a straight choice not between independence and a possible imaginary Union of the future, but between independence and the Union we have now. (Cameron is unequivocal on this, insisting that his hypothetical vision of a more devolved Scotland within the United Kingdom isn’t actually offered to the Scottish people, but left entirely in the trust of Westminster.) And for THAT Union, Cameron made no case at all. Indeed, it could plausibly be argued that he all but explicitly abandoned it.

It’s hard to construct any sort of plausible justification for the Prime Minister’s refusal, when repeatedly challenged by journalists after the speech, to outline the specific devolution proposals which might be negotiated or acknowledge any need for a democratic mandate for them. Cameron has two years in which he could, if he wished, put together an “enhanced devolution” package which could go on the ballot paper. That’s plenty of time, especially given that the Unionist parties have already had a  two-year head start while working on the Calman Commission and Scotland Bill. So why is he so implacably opposed to the idea?

It seems unlikely that the Scottish electorate will fall for such a flimsy pig in a poke. They have, after all, been here before (as the SNP will be sure to constantly remind them), and the vague implied promises of some sort of possible jam tomorrow will carry no more weight for also coming from the hopelessly discredited mouths of Nick Clegg and Michael Moore. (And less still if Labour join in, should they somehow get so far as managing to develop a policy at all.)

David Cameron didn’t make the positive case for the Union on Thursday. He made a case for a positive version of the Union. It’s a version which exists only in abstract conceptual form and which the Prime Minister will neither describe nor commit himself to. (And indeed, one which he may be in no power to honour even if he wanted to, given that by the time the referendum is over a UK general election will loom a matter of months over the horizon.)

It is, in other words, a con trick – a honey trap, built with sugar-sweet words and little else. The Scottish people were badly stung 33 years ago. We suspect this time it’s Cameron who will come unstuck.

A possible sighting coming up later today, readers, according to The Scotsman. Keep your eyes and ears peeled, this could be the big one.

“David Cameron will today make a passionate plea to save the United Kingdom when he travels to Scotland to warn that ‘our shared home is under threat from the SNP. The Prime Minister will make what his office says is a positive case for the Union.“

We’re standing by.

Scottish politics seems to be having a wee holiday this week. The First Minister has a little chat with the Scottish Secretary over the referendum, deciding nothing, the Unionists demand “answers” to questions on a completely different subject, Jim Sillars witters on about something or other in yet another bitter rage about how well the SNP’s doing without him, and the Scotsman quietly admits that some of its previous scare stories (this time the ones about Scottish membership of the EU) were cobblers and hopes nobody notices. In other words, business as usual.

The reason everyone’s putting out a skeleton service operating on auto-pilot is, of course, that they’re all transfixed with the goings-on at Ibrox. And rightly so, because it’s an enormous story which reaches out and touches the entire population in a way that politics almost never does.

For fans of Rangers, their entire world has fallen in. For fans of other clubs it’s either hilarious, or a time for rising above petty rivalries and showing solidarity with their fellow supporters, ie it’s secretly hilarious. For Rangers employees it’s a worry, for battered wives, social services and hard-pressed A&E staff it’s a blessing and for booze retailers it’s a catastrophe.

We also can’t ignore the possible political consequences. For decades Rangers FC has served as a weekly indoctrination service for the defenders of the Union – you can’t spend a large proportion of your leisure time waving Union Jacks and singing “Rule Britannia” with thousands of fellow loyal subjects of Her Majesty (she of the Revenue and Customs) without it having some sort of effect on your worldview.

But for the media, which for months on end has largely turned a blind eye to the scale of Rangers’ problems and left the blogosphere to pick up the slack, it’s a time of panic. If Rangers fall they’ll probably take half the circulation (and pagecount) of the Daily Record with them, and the tabloid media in general is desperate for the club to survive in something as close to its present form as possible.

So the story, told loudly and relentlessly, is that Scottish football couldn’t live by Celtic alone. Rangers, it’s insisted over and over, are vital to the continued health – nay, the very survival – of the domestic game.

Their friendly, loveable fans, we hear, are the lifeblood of every other club in the league as they turn up twice a season to swell the stands and consume the Scotch pies and Bovril that pay the wages of the home side’s gangly centre-half. The TV riches that pour into SPL coffers would vanish too, without the juicy prize of four Old Firm games a year to tempt Sky into opening their gold-plated chequebook. All in all, take Rangers away and you might as well padlock the turnstiles from Inverness Caley Thistle to Queen Of The South and call it a day.

But is it true? No. It’s a load of balls.

Read the rest of this entry →

Word has reached us that today Willie Rennie, the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, has allowed himself to be photographed holding an oversized pledge card he’s signed, promising to back equal marriage rights for homosexuals.

We’re sure that he’ll uphold the proud traditions of Lib Dems signing oversized pledge cards, and that equal marriage rights for gays are now definitely a done deal as a result. Because if there’s one thing we all know for sure in this uncertain world, it’s that once a Lib Dem has signed an oversized pledge card, there’s no going back.

Seriously, did nobody tell him or something?

In the light of today’s news, and some clown on the BBC just saying that Scottish football has “depended on” the Old Firm for years, here’s a little non-political curio from the past. 15 years ago I wrote a piece for the sadly-missed Total Football magazine, putting forward the suggestion that the only way forward for the game in Scotland was to kick Rangers and Celtic out and form a new league without them.

While (some of) the names have changed, the feature is basically as true today as it was in 1997, if not more so.  Among other things it tackled the myth that other clubs relied on the Gruesome Twosome for their survival through increased gate receipts, and it might be worth keeping in mind over the coming days amid what’s an all-but-inevitable avalanche of drivel heading our way from a media which has studiously avoided covering the full extent of Rangers’ troubles until now, and has been shamed by a thoroughly tremendous blog.

Read the rest of this entry →

This is Scottish Secretary Michael Moore in The Times (Saturday 11th February 2012, paywall link), in an interview widely interpreted as a pledge to move forward with greater devolution for Scotland should the country vote No to independence in 2014:

“The central point is to let Scotland decide whether it’s part of the part of the United Kingdom or not.  I’m confident it will say ‘we are’. Then we can work through the detail of what the next stages of devolution will be… The referendum is the start of the conversation, not the end.”

This, on the other hand, is Scottish Secretary Michael Moore, quoted by the Telegraph on the 22nd of December 2010 on the subject of the coalition government:

“Tuition fees [are] the biggest, ugliest, most horrific thing in all of this. I signed a pledge that promised not to do this. I’ve just done the worst crime a politician can commit, the reason most folk distrust us as a breed. I’ve had to break a pledge and very, very publicly, in what is a car crash, train wreck, whatever metaphor one wishes to put in terms of the politics of this, and it is deeply damaging to my party, to me individually and lots of others.”

Far be it from us to suggest that Mr Moore’s promises literally aren’t worth the paper they’re signed on. We don’t need to, because he’s just told you that himself. You’ll have to make your own mind up how far you trust him to deliver more powers to the Scottish Parliament if you decide to leave those powers in the hands of Westminster.

But when you’re doing that, be crystal clear on how things will stand in 2014 – a No vote is a vote for the status quo. Anything after that depends on the honesty of liars.

It’s nearly always nice to get a surprise, and a couple certainly came our way from the mainstream press and blogosphere today when two of the most diehard Unionists in the field had sudden rushes of blood to the head, threw off the reins and revealed what they really thought. First up was Kevin McKenna in the Observer, who in his frustration at his FUD comrades presenting Alex Salmond with an endless series of open goals let slip this, in contravention of the constantly-expounded party line:

“There is a growing sense in this country that we must be allowed to become the masters of our own destiny, for good or for ill, and free from any Westminster interference. This has been reflected by significant increases in support for independence, two-and-a-half years before the event, in every opinion poll since the die was cast last month.”

Kevin will be getting his wrists slapped by Unionist Central on Monday, we’re certain – the official policy is that support for independence is stalled at either a quarter or a third of the electorate, depending how hardline you are. Admitting that it’s on the rise at all – far less significantly so – will doubtless have Mr McKenna in hot water, but it pales beside the weekend’s other great “Whoops, did I say that out loud?” moment.

That appeared on the blog of Labour activist and media commentator Ian Smart, talking about his appearance on today’s Sunday Politics, and the cat he let out of the bag was one concerned with this blog’s favourite urban myth, the positive case for the Union. Because what Ian did was give away the poorly-kept secret that Johann Lamont, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Willie Rennie, Michael Moore, Ruth Davidson and David Cameron and all the others are lying through their teeth when they constantly promise to make said case. Quoth Ian:

“There is no need to make a “positive case for the Union”. We know, for good or ill, what the Union entails. There is simply the need to make a case against “Independence”.”

We can’t exactly affect surprise at this revelation. After all, we’ve been tracking promises of the “positive case” ranging back 32 years, without a single actual sighting of it. But Smart’s unguarded moment is no less depressing for its confirmation, because it tells us that Labour plan a scorched-earth strategy for the independence debate. They will happily destroy Scotland to keep it in the Union, by running a campaign based on fear, distortion and outright lies with no thought for the state that will leave the country in after the referendum, whether the vote is Yes or No.

Two and a half years of unrelenting, poisonous negativity can only have a hideously toxic effect on the entire body politic of Scotland, because for a negative campaign to win it must catastrophically undermine the confidence of the Scottish people in their ability to run their own country successfully. (Because if you DO believe you can do that, why on Earth would you ever let the voters of another nation impose on you governments and ideologies you consistently reject?)

Bewilderingly, and infinitely depressingly, Smart believes that independence supporters want Unionists to campaign positively only as some sort of trick, that it’s a trap we’re luring our unwary opponents towards. But in fact it’s because whichever way Scotland votes in autumn 2014, we’d like to move forward as a nation that hasn’t been torn in two by years of vicious infighting, bitterness and dirty trickery.

We’re not at all sure we’d like to live in Ian Smart’s future Scotland even if it did vote for independence. Such a divided country – set implacably against itself like an Old Firm derby writ large, and crushed by an inferiority complex – would be a dark, benighted place. But maybe that grotesque vision is exactly what Smart and his Unionist allies want – to tell the Yes camp that even victory would be Pyrrhic, the winners inheriting nothing but ashes and ruins. For such a despicable worldview and strategy we hold nothing but contempt. But we’re glad to see that at least it’s finally out in the open.

There are some stories which persist long after they’ve been debunked, a recent example being Joan McAlpine’s supposed accusation that anyone opposing the SNP was “anti-Scottish”. However many times it was shown that she didn’t say any such thing, however often she explained what she HAD said, the lie kept being perpetuated (and will doubtless continue to be in the coming months and years) by people who knew full well it wasn’t true, because it suited their agenda to do so.

The notion that Scotland is massively subsidised by England is another such political legend, and we don’t imagine for a second that this story from today’s Sunday Times will stop the endless stream of idiots on the Telegraph, Mail and Express (both above and below the line) from continuing to assert it at every opportunity.

But at least now you can handily link them to the actual facts, even if they don’t want to hear them. The full article can be read below.

Read the rest of this entry →

It’s almost like they don’t even know they’re doing it, the poor loves.

“The First Minister was selective in his definition of a ‘gauleiter’ in the Holyrood chamber on Thursday.”

That’s Ruth Davidson, quoted disapproving of the FM’s shady behaviour in a Scottish Conservatives press release today. And it’s a strong point – there’s nothing worse than using definitions selectively to support your own case, right? But wait, what’s this?

“Alex Salmond described it as the kind of decision made by a tin-pot dictatorship populated by ‘gauleiters’ – which, according to the Chambers dictionary is a Nazi official.”

That’s the very same press release, just a few lines earlier. And unless we’re very much mistaken, what it’s doing is… you guessed it, readers. It’s selectively quoting from the dictionary definition of a “gauleiter”. Oops! Our wife’s going to kill us, etc.

But in fact, it’s rather worse than just selective – as the Collins definition quite clearly notes, “Gauleiter” in a Nazi context must have a capital “G”, because all German nouns are capitalised. If you write the word all in lower-case (as the Tory press release attributes to the FM) you’re explicitly citing the non-Nazi definition, which means that according to the Tories themselves, Salmond’s usage is correct and theirs is wrong.

And the Chambers definition they refer to makes things worse still – it explicitly refers to the Nazi definition as “historical”, meaning the current usage of the word is indeed to describe a petty bureaucrat. It also states that the former definition is only applicable to the period “under the Nazi regime”, which as far as we’re aware ended in 1945. (Germany has no Gauleiters nowadays.) In other words, unless you’re directly referring to specific events that took place in Germany under Adolf Hitler, the ONLY legitimate current definition of the word “gauleiter” is the one the First Minister used.

We’re sure the Scottish Conservatives would be embarrassed at this shocking display of both rank hypocrisy and basic grammatical ignorance, except that looking at what they’re doing to the unemployed, the disabled, and the sick at the moment, we’re forced to conclude that the Tories have no shame at all.

When you hear an organisation is “linked to the Taxpayers’ Alliance”, you don’t build your hopes up too high. The TPA are a bunch of Tea Party-esque loons at the best of times, and the phrase suggests some sort of renegade splinter group too crazy even for that particular nut-house. We’re probably still just about entitled to expect fractionally higher standards from the Telegraph, though.

We were directed to this piece yesterday by a Labour source who really ought to know better, and who was citing it as conclusive proof that an independent Scotland’s economy would be crippled by debt repayments. (Our source later admitted to not actually having read the article before linking to it, which perhaps tells you something about the quality of debate one tends to get from Unionists.)

That anyone at the Telegraph, a once-respectable newspaper, actually thought this rubbish was worth putting its name to may be even more instructive as to how desperate the FUD camp is for scare stories which might frighten Scots away from independence. You can scour the “story” all day looking for how it arrived at the headline figure, or trying to piece it together yourself from the random fragments of made-up “data” scattered through the text (a spurious £9bn here, an invented £7.5bn there, a pulled-from-thin-air 30% somewhere else), but you’ll be out of luck.

If in occasional moments of weakness over the next two and a half years you doubt our chances of success, glance back at this and see just how afraid of us they are.

First Minister's Questions is rarely a hugely edifying spectacle, but this blog could barely watch to the end of yesterday's proceedings. Labour's leader exhibited a heady mix of ignorance and xenophobia, while the FM's Conservative counterpart opted for a barely-believable combination of direct personal abuse (which could truthfully be paraphrased as "You're fat, ha ha!") and petty timewasting. If we tell you, dear readers, that Willie Rennie took on the role of the calm, intelligent voice of reason (with a dull but substantive question about freedom-of-information laws), you'll perhaps grasp the full degree to which the other two opposition leaders lost the plot.

It was one of the rowdiest FMQs in recent memory, with the Presiding Officer forced to repeatedly call for order, specifically warn Labour's Jackie Baillie to behave herself, and on one occasion even resort to a sharp bang of her gavel in order to silence the cacophanous hooting and jeering coming from – mostly – the opposition benches. The First Minister himself looked dismayed, surprised and somewhat ashamed at the picture of Scotland's political elite being portrayed to the world, and it would be hard for any impartial observer to disagree with his judgement.

Read the rest of this entry →